Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Good News from the Court
After the "bong hits for Jesus" ruling, some good news from the court. And it's another 5-4 split:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students' race.
The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.
The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's other three liberals.
UPDATE: Commenter Robc provides a link to the ruling (pdf) .
|6.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#
How about posting a link to something that actually contains the meat of the case?
|6.28.07 @ 10:51AM|#
it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.
I think I see the problem. The goal should be to accept
racial diversity. The goal should not be to
maintain racial diversity.
|6.28.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Tarran,
This is just off the wire. I am sure that if you poked around the
Supreme Court website you could find a PDF of the ruling in the
next hour or so. If you are unaware of the site's address, Google
is a helpful tool.
|6.28.07 @ 10:52AM|#
30 seconds on google provides this gem:
NPR
: Supreme Court Hears School Diversity Case
Note to everyone, it the case was concerned with assigning kids to
schools, not homework assignments, based on their
race.
|6.28.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Michael,
I hate to say this, but regurgitating a press release on yahoo is
something I expect from my automatic RSS feed, not from a commenter
on a site dedicated to "continuous news, views, and abuse by the
reason staff".
The idea is to add some value.
|6.28.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Sorry, why is this good news?
Freedom frequently produces self-segregation. The plans that were
disallowed were an attempt to undo the self-segregation in
neighborhoods. The consequence of the decision is that the racial
make-up of neighborhood schools will follow the racial make-up of
of the neighborhoods themselves instead of the aggregate make-up of
of the entire city.
Even if one accepts that self-segregation of neighborhoods is bad,
using the school system to undo that segration is not an
appropriate use of the power of the government.
robc|6.28.07 @ 11:01AM|#
scotusblog has the ruling now. Its a 185 pages, for those
wanting a light reading. Thomas's concurrence appears to be 1
sentence of agreeing with Roberts and 30 pages of blasting
Breyer.
http://scotusblog.wordpress.com/files/2007/06/05-908.pdf
|6.28.07 @ 11:01AM|#
With the decline of old-fashioned hard and fast housing
segregation by race, and its replacement by economic segregation,
this isn't really as much of a big deal as it would have been, say,
30 years ago.
Cambridge, Massachusetts has really blazed the trail in terms of
replacing race with family income in its school assignment
policy.
I'm kind of with Sandra Day O'Connor on this - in many areas,
affirmative action has largely worked, and as a result, is becoming
less necessary.
|6.28.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Sorry, why is this good news? Is H&R all "yay
segregation!" now?
We tried assigning students based on race before. Brown v. Board of
Education unanimously ruled it
unconstitutional.
|6.28.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Does anyone think forcing kids to take longer bus rides makes
them any smarter? If they have to go home to the same house with
the same parents it doesn't matter where they go to school.
Historically here in the south black areas of towns had schools
with a majority of black teachers. I think it is a slap in the face
to those teachers as if saying you can't teach these kids so we
will ship them over here where they will learn. If the kid wasn't
learning for their own reasons to begin with it is not going to
help to send them someplace else to do the same things. What this
tells me is that blacks do not even think other blacks are capable
of teaching their kids and for some reason believe if they go to
another school their kid will be smart all of a sudden.
Regarding the freedom of society to migrate and segregate itself
all on its own is a very true statement. Perhaps if the different
races cultures weren't so out of line with one another more could
live together in harmony, but this is the exception not the
rule.
I recently moved from a mixed race hood. Great neighbors on both
sides, one white couple and one black family. But across the street
was one house that had to have music thumping all the time and
another down the street. These two occupants drove out people that
had been in their homes for years and are still driving more out.
Even the black neighbor is ready to move, so what does that say
when even the blacks are ready to move due to the blacks?
What I question is why the good hardworking blacks don't go across
the street and tell the others to knock it off. If I did it I would
be racist of course.
Its these types of situations that force one race away from the
other. A lack of respect and common decency for your neighbors who
pay to live in the house they can't think in because of your noise
intrusions and they wonder why white flight is so common.
Look around its easy to see why people segregate themselves on
their own, they get tired of having to tolerate the bullshit and
they sure don't want to have to pay to endure it. So when you hear
the stereotype of blacks moving in bringing neighborhoods down in
all ways its not true but there are those that fit the description
to a tee and those are the ones that do all the damage. Otherwise I
had no problems being one of 3 whites on the street. But now I am
in the country on a few acres and no neighbors and no boom boom
either and its fucking lovely.
|6.28.07 @ 11:34AM|#
J sub D,
You are mis-stating the law.
The Court held in "Brown vs. Board" that segregation was
unconstitutional. It was neither asked, nor addressed on its own,
whether any other race-conscious program was constitutional. Just
segregation.
|6.28.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Wow, Dee, that's a lotta straw you've got there.
Does anyone think forcing kids to take longer bus rides makes
them any smarter? No, not a single person who has ever argued
in favor of racial integration in school assignments has ever
argued that longer bus trips produce part of the benefits.
If they have to go home to the same house with the same parents
it doesn't matter where they go to school. Uh, yeah, all
schools do exactly the same job educating students. That's why
involved parents don't ever worry about which school their kids go
to.
Historically here in the south black areas of towns had schools
with a majority of black teachers. I think it is a slap in the face
to those teachers as if saying you can't teach these kids so we
will ship them over here where they will learn. Then I suppose
it is equally a slap in the face for the white teachers in
historically white neighborhoods when kids from those areas go to
schools across town. You do realize that school integration plans
work both ways, right?
What this tells me is that blacks do not even think other
blacks are capable of teaching their kids and for some reason
believe if they go to another school their kid will be smart all of
a sudden.
Uh huh. And I suppose that objections to segregated drinking
fountains indicate that black people think other black people are
unhygienic.
XaabaZu|6.28.07 @ 11:42AM|#
oh, man, I absolutely am not kidding; I am in the same situation
as Dee's anecdote but for the difference that the horrible people
across the street from me are actually white. Man, they congregate
in their driveway with really loud music playing, throw garbage all
over the place and the police are constantly coming out to retrieve
stuff they stole or break up fights. Now, the parents are typical
mullets, but all their kids are into 'gangsta cultcha', so not sure
what that says, but the black couple on one side, and the whites on
the other can't stand any of them.
Add to that what is obviously some kind of drug/party house down
the block...
Still, we own our house, so that's good.
Rhywun|6.28.07 @ 12:04PM|#
I don't see why this is a big deal. School districts have been creating 'specialized' high schools for decades, one of the results of which is increased diversity. If you think 'diversity' is desirable (and I do--but as an effect, not a goal) it can be easily achieved as a side effect of any of various methods which increase competition and which are good for schools anyway, without crude measures such as forced busing.
|6.28.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Add to that what is obviously some kind of drug/party house
down the block...
There's gotta be some city councilman in yur town who's friendly to
the idea of eminement domain. Pitch a coulple of development
projects and get those houses condemned.
Gilbert Martin|6.28.07 @ 12:06PM|#
"and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to
maintain racial diversity."
Well that's no big deal, since no one has ever actually proven that
"diversity" is any sort of accomplishment in and of itself in the
first place.
|6.28.07 @ 12:10PM|#
XaabaZu,
The bad house on my block is occupied by a Hell's Angel.
They don't let black people join the Hell's Angels.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 12:20PM|#
I'm still amused by the notion that in order to create a color-blind society, we must continue to asume that color is SO IMPORTANT it should be a major factor, maybe even the only factor, in deciding where you go to school or what grades you need to get there. Not intelligence, not talent, not aptitude: race. And when a black student is denied admission to a black school because there's "too many" black kids there already, that's not called racist but credited with wiping racism out.
|6.28.07 @ 12:23PM|#
I am crossing my fingers, hoping that someone posts on this thread, "I am the bad person on my block," a list of their misbehavior, and then, "Nyaah!"
|6.28.07 @ 12:30PM|#
There is no identifiable bad person on my block.
...I hope that doesn't mean it's me.
|6.28.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Jennifer,
"Diversity" has become a sort of civic religion in some sectors of
the education establishment. I had to fill out an online survey
about college quality for a 70-something professor here at the
office once, she dictating responses to me. When the survey asked
her to rank criteria for assessing the quality of a university she
said the number one criteria was racial diversity. The number two
was gender diversity.
|6.28.07 @ 12:41PM|#
no one has ever actually proven that "diversity" is any sort
of accomplishment in and of itself in the first place
No one has ever actually proven that "having math books" is any
sort of accomplishment in and of itself, either.
But they help. They make it easier to teach certain things to the
kids.
|6.28.07 @ 12:47PM|#
jennifer -- i agree with you, but I work at a university and have been told by the diversity mavens that the concept of a "color-blind society" is inherently racist. so, i think the mainstream diversity movement would discount the goal of a color-blind society.
|6.28.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Racial Blindness:
A bank gets load applications from a certain numnber of black
people, and a certain number of white people. The two groups have
similar incomes and credit histories. The bank approves 90% of the
loans for white people, and denies 90% of the loans for black
people.
Right thinking, color-blind people look at the data, and are at a
complete loss to explain the bank's random, irrational patten of
approving loan applications, and denounce anyone who is able to
explain what's going on as a racist.
Why are you looking at what race the people who apply for loans
are, you racist bastard?!? It is evil to ask that question!
|6.28.07 @ 12:52PM|#
I'm surprised that Reason hasn't blogged Wilkie v. Robbins
yet. I think it may be more damaging to property rights than even
Kelo.
If has been written about I missed it.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 12:55PM|#
"Diversity" has become a sort of civic religion in some
sectors of the education establishment.
I know. In a small (and rich) town near me there's been a brouhaha
over lack of diversity; specifically, school A has "too many" white
kids and school B has "too many" black. (These are neighborhood
schools.) But that's the only complaint! No evidence that one
school gives an inferior education to the other, no evidence of
inequitable funding, not even a difference in the Sacred Test
Scores. No, the sole "problem" is that many of the kids have the
wrong color of skin.
Dear God, how I'd love to take such an article and replace "white"
with "blonde" and "black" with "brunette." Maybe then when people
read how horrible it is that one school has too many brunettes
while the other has too many blondes, they'll realize how fucking
stupid the whole thing is.
Ms Johnson|6.28.07 @ 12:57PM|#
This is a more narrow opinion that the pundits would have you believe. It is very interesting, though, to see the division on this court. Roberts was supposed to be a consensus builder. Not so much.
|6.28.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Meanwhile, the bank goes about its business in the usual
way.
The logic of colorblindness is the logic of abject pacifism; it
denounces the man who defends himself as the moral equivalent of
his mugger. If successful, it convinces the man who would prefer
there not be any violence to stop resisting his attacker. There is
no chance of the pacifist argument convincing the mugger to stop,
because he doesn't accept the absence of violence as a principle he
should try to promote.
|6.28.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Dear God, how I wish "white" and "black" only mattered as much
as "blonde" and "brunette."
But pretending won't make it so.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 1:01PM|#
The logic of colorblindness is the logic of abject pacifism;
it denounces the man who defends himself as the moral equivalent of
his mugger.
What? So if I say "I'm more interested in your personality and
intelligence than in the color of your skin," this is no different
from me saying "I see no difference between victim and attacker?"
The moral thing to do is pick my friends and colleagues based on
their skin tone rather than less superficial traits?
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Maybe Reason should make all posters identify their race in each
post, so readers will now how seriously to take each comment.
--Jennifer (white chick of northern European stock)
|6.28.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Even if one accepts that self-segregation of neighborhoods
is bad, using the school system to undo that segration is not an
appropriate use of the power of the government.
No, that's why the government has eminent domain powers.
|6.28.07 @ 1:11PM|#
No, Jennifer, if you say "taking race into account to counter
segregation is the equivalent of taking race into account to
enforce segregation," as you often do, you are drawing a moral
equivalence between victim and attacker.
The moral thing to do is pick my friends and colleagues based
on their skin tone rather than less superficial traits? I
don't give a crap about how you choose your friends. The moral, and
smart, thing for a school to do, on the other hand, is to avoid
segregation and give the kids the chance to have interactions with
people of other races as part of their educational experience.
|6.28.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Jennifer,
Judgine the value of a comment by the race of the speaker is a
racist act.
|6.28.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Oops, I forgot to switch my handle back from "Sir Michael Jagger" after my post yesterday. Sorry.
|6.28.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Anyway, Jennifer, absolutely nothing on the moral necessity of pretending not to know what's going on at that bank?
|6.28.07 @ 1:16PM|#
K.T. white, hispanic male...
i'm generally identified as a self-hater - or a "slave" to the
european part of my heritage - since i am of hispanic ethnicity and
don't buy into diversity as defined by the educational
establishment.
the self-hater critique is really my favorite argument... my
critical colleagues are somehow able to peer into the deepest,
darkest corners of my psyche...
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 1:16PM|#
No, Jennifer, if you say "taking race into account to
counter segregation is the equivalent of taking race into account
to enforce segregation," as you often do, you are drawing a moral
equivalence between victim and attacker.
Except that now you're talking about countering segregation that
happened naturally, as opposed to segregation the government forces
on people.
You tell me the polite way to tell my Puerto Rican next-door
neighbor that she has too many Puerto Rican friends, and needs to
diversify to counter segregation. Better yet, tell me why this is
even a problem.
Judgine the value of a comment by the race of the speaker is a
racist act.
But judging the value of a student by her race is just fine?
VM|6.28.07 @ 1:21PM|#
joe -
it only counts if one originally claimed to be blond and was later
revealed to be a redhead.
Or something like that, anyways.
Radar! Where are the...
thank you.
|6.28.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I came up in the Jefferson County (Greater Louisville) school
system. I was bussed to my highschool, and while I was there it was
maybe 80% white and 20% black. Right after I graduated, the county
changed to an open election process to choose the school you want
to attend. Two years later the school was 80% black.
I'm not sure bussing accomplished anything at the end of the day.
There was tension while I was there, and it was resolved by self
segregating at first in classes and the lunchroom, then by a freely
chosen segregation of the whole school system in to white and black
schools. I dunno.
|6.28.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Isn't it important for white guys from white suburbs to know that not every black chick can get jiggy with her badunkadunk like all the girls do on BET?
|6.28.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Also, exposure to a diversity of thought is important for kids,
I would think. Unfortunately, diversity of thought isn't what
'diversity' usually means in public policy.
Parents should give thought to non coercive ways of exposing their
kids to the different so that the experience has a shot at being a
good one.
|6.28.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Jennifer,
LoL. "...segregation that happened naturally..."
Yeah, state of nature - that's why there are white and black
neighborhoods in the U.S., because of nature.
I'm talking about countering segregation that happened because of
what the government forced on people, and used its clout to allow
private parties to force on people, in the past. You know what? I'm
comfortable with that.
And as I've already told you, I don't give a crap about who people
have as their friends. This is a discussion about public
institutions and places of accomodation.
But judging the value of a student by her race is just
fine? Judging anything about a student except her race by her
race is not fine, it is prejudice. On the other hand, "judging"
that a black applicant would, in fact, be a black student if
admitted to the school is just fine.
|6.28.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Parents should give thought to non coercive ways of exposing
their kids to the different so that the experience has a shot at
being a good one.
Excellent point, my parents called that "volunteering through
church," "travel," and "reading." Nice and non-coercive and I was
engaged with people/perspectives from all walks of life.
Unfortunately, I still hold this bias against non-humans.
|6.28.07 @ 1:32PM|#
My life experience shows that people in the same ecomonic strata
tend to have the same types of thoughts.
So what if the only diversity of thought belongs to the kids of the
white people who make noise all night long. It's a good thing for
my kids to want to annoy their neighbors?
|6.28.07 @ 1:33PM|#
I'm talking about countering segregation that happened
because of what the government forced on people, and used its clout
to allow private parties to force on people, in the past. You know
what? I'm comfortable with that.
The "two wrongs make a right" or "ends justify the means" school of
thought. Giving government the chance to screw up in an area they
already screwed up once. Brilliant.
|6.28.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Go ahead, just try to make me feel guilty for saying it's a good
thing to know what's going on at that bank.
Go ahead, give me the argument for why it is essential that only
those who wish to promote racial injustice, and not those who wish
to reduce racial injustice, are allowed to use knowledge of race in
their actions.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 1:36PM|#
This is a discussion about public institutions and places of
accomodation.
Yes, and you're apparently arguing in favor of the government
deciding that race should be the deciding factor in which public
institution (school) people are allowed/required to attend.
I'm talking about countering segregation that happened because
of what the government forced on people
Which may explain why there's still segregated neighborhoods in
places like Alabama, where racial segregation was once required by
law and probably still has inertia behind it. But I'm more
concerned with a rich town in Connecticut where the two schools are
by all accounts equal in terms of funding, scoring, and achievement
(all high, by the way), yet instead of saying "Hooray! Our schools
are a success!" the town is saying they might be failures
solely because the students there have the wrong color
skin.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Go ahead, just try to make me feel guilty for saying it's a
good thing to know what's going on at that bank.
Who's trying to do that? I don't see anybody here arguing that
racism doesn't still exist; I'm seeing people arguing that
inflating the importance of race in order to end racism is
counterproductive.
|6.28.07 @ 1:39PM|#
KT,
You've yet to make even the pretense of an argument for why
assigning a student to School A instead of School B is a "wrong" in
the first place.
In the case of segregation, it's easy; it's wrong to assign kids to
schools in order to have segregated schools, because segregation is
evil.
Your turn.
|6.28.07 @ 1:40PM|#
God love John Roberts... smartarse.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
discrimination on the basis of race,"
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 1:45PM|#
BAD RACISM
BLACK KID: I would like to enroll in my neighborhood public school,
please.
OFFICIAL: Sorry, you're not allowed. That school is for white kids
only.
GOOD RACISM
BLACK KID: I would like to enroll in my neighborhood public school,
please.
OFFICIAL: Sorry, you're not allowed. There are too many black kids
there already.
Gilbert Martin|6.28.07 @ 1:46PM|#
"No one has ever actually proven that "having math books" is any
sort of accomplishment in and of itself, either.
But they help. They make it easier to teach certain things to the
kids."
Math books help in teaching math - a specific subject that is part
of the academic curriculum.
"Diversity" is not an academic subject - it is merely a buzzword
that some liberals think has magic properties. They think invoking
it constitutes defacto proof that something substantive has been
accomplished without them having to actually prove something has
been accomplished.
|6.28.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Yes, and you're apparently arguing in favor of the
government deciding that race should be the deciding factor in
which public institution (school) people are allowed/required to
attend.
No, Jennifer, I've gone so far as "A factor." You are throwing out
phrases like "the deciding factor," "the largest factor," and "the
only factor" in order to steal bases via semantic tricks. Stop
that; it's unseemly.
But yes, I am arguing a position that the government should
actively work for racial diversity, and against racial segregation,
in its schools. That's because the education and social bonds that
are formed in public schools are the government's business, and who
your Puerto Rican friend hangs around with is not.
But I'm more concerned with a rich town in Connecticut where
the two schools are by all accounts equal in terms of funding,
scoring, and achievement (all high, by the way), yet instead of
saying "Hooray! Our schools are a success!" the town is saying they
might be failures solely because the students there have the wrong
color skin.
Wait, I'm confused; which school has students with the wrong color
of skin, the predominately white school, or the predominately black
school?
OK, I'm not really confused. That was just a snarky way of pointing
out that you are, once again, using little semantic tricks to play
dumb and avoid discussing what you know to be the actual issue
here.
The schools are not concerned because they think somebody's skin
color is "wrong." They are concerned because the kids in the
schools are missing out on the important experience of socializing
and working with a racially and ethnicly diverse group of
people.
|6.28.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Government assignment of schooling - at all - is wrong,
"in the first place."
Provide an educational marketplace where there is curricular and
educational choice. I applaud the partial aim of school choice at
the heart of the these programs, just not what I perceive to be
their primitive views on race and ethnicity.
My family already had one government deny us government services
based on ethnicity/nationality... I did not think I would have ever
see the day that such things would happen in the United States in
the 21st century. But, thankfully, we don't live in the backwaters
of Louisville or Seattle
|6.28.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Jennifer,
Who's trying to do that? Everyone who complains that it is
wrong for agents of the government to collect race data and take it
into account as they do the public's business is trying to do
that.
Hands up: who thinks it's wrong, and racially unjust, for the
government to require banks to include a racial check box on loan
applications?
Everyone with their hand up is saying the government has a duty not
to know what that bank is up to.
|6.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
How to blow your nose, how to demonstrate table manners, and how to
think ahead so you have the correct materials for the classes on
the other side of campus are not "academic subjects," either.
Nonetheless, they are important skills that schools should help
their students learn.
As is functioning within a racially diverse environment. If you
come out of school not knowing that, the school has missed out on
preparing you for the world.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Hands up: who thinks it's wrong, and racially unjust, for
the government to require banks to include a racial check box on
loan applications?
Me. I'd much prefer banks to make their decisions on factors like
the loan applicant's income and ability to pay the loan back.
Everyone who complains that it is wrong for agents of the
government to collect race data and take it into account as they do
the public's business is trying to do that.
No, most people here admit racism still exists in America, but say
that forcing people to focus on race is not the way to end racism.
The public businesses that government should be involved in, like
national defense or upholding safety laws, has nothing to do with
race. The only time the government or its agents should be asking
about race is when the cops ask a crime victim to describe the
attacker's physical appearance.
|6.28.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Jennifer,
Using the term "racism" to describe a preference for racial
diversity and equality is just another of your semantic
games.
You aren't really making points anymore.
|6.28.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Me. I'd much prefer banks to make their decisions on factors
like the loan applicant's income and ability to pay the loan
back.
As do I. The difference is, I actually want to do something about
that, and you don't. I want it to be possible for the government to
enforce laws against that discrimination, and you don't.
No, most people here admit racism still exists in America, but
say that forcing people to focus on race is not the way to end
racism.
Having a check box on a bank application doesn't "force" anyone to
focus on race. The bank is perfectly free to ignore the race of the
applicant entirely.
But if they don't, if they are doing what I described in my
exammple, I support the government doing something about it, and
you don't.
Now, if want the government to do nothing about private-sector
discrimination because of ideological beliefs about the proper role
of government, fine. That doesn't make you racist.
However, disagreeing with you about the proper scope of government
in this area, and wanting it to take steps to prevent racial
discrimination, is not racism, any more that wanting the army to
fight off foreign invaders is aggressive imperialism.
|6.28.07 @ 2:04PM|#
See, Jennifer, here's your problem in a nut-shell:
Hands up: who thinks it's wrong, and racially unjust, for the
government to require banks to include a racial check box on loan
applications?
Me. I'd much prefer banks to make their decisions on factors like
the loan applicant's income and ability to pay the loan
back.
I didn't write a single thing about what the bank would take into
account. The government requires banks to collect racial data not
to force, or even allow, them to take race into account, but to
prevent them from doing so.
And you can't draw that distinction.
Gilbert Martin|6.28.07 @ 2:04PM|#
"Nonetheless, they are important skills that schools should help
their students learn.
As is functioning within a racially diverse environment. If you
come out of school not knowing that, the school has missed out on
preparing you for the world."
Nonsense.
No one has ever proven that there is any correlation between the
racial mix of classrooms where students attended school and the
students subsequent success in the world.
Gilbert Martin|6.28.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"The public businesses that government should be involved in,
like national defense or upholding safety laws, has nothing to do
with race. The only time the government or its agents should be
asking about race is when the cops ask a crime victim to describe
the attacker's physical appearance."
Correct.
The federal government has no legitimate authority to mandate or
require anything regarding race outside the boudaries of it's own
organizational units. That is not pursuant to any ennumerated power
delegated to the federal government in the text of the Constitution
as is required by the 10th Amendment.
Roz|6.28.07 @ 2:20PM|#
***GOD BLESS AMERICA***
Keep that Stupid Nigger in the back of the bus
Throw those FAGGOTS back in the Closet
Bring Back the Coat Hanger
..and last, but not, least Car bumpers for All americans that read:
'All that we're saying...is give war a Chance'
***GOD BLESS AMERICA***
***GOD BLESS OUR SUPREME COURT***
|6.28.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Define "success in the world," Gilbert.
People have most definitely proven that kids who grew up with
experiences knowing people of other races are more comfortable
operating with people of other races. Sounds like "success in the
world" to me.
|6.28.07 @ 2:24PM|#
joe:
I'd suggest that the government collecting data doesn't get rid of
the problem because it has no way to address how complicated the
problem is. Disparate outcomes is not the same as discrimination. I
don't like the collection of that data point because it provides
the illusion that the govenment now can prosecute
discrimination.
It can't. It can only use inappropriate data as an excuse to swing
a sledge at a company for political purposes.
Roz|6.28.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Though I may be for some for of Affirmative Action...I think
kids should have to take a bus hours away.
Beside, if a parent spends $700,000 to live in an all-white
neighborhood...it should be their poragative. Why should they have
to send their kids to a black school (with low grades, drugs,
violence) after paying all that money?
|6.28.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Maybe so that their kids won't grow up to be the sort of people who write "...black school (with low grades, drugs, violence)..."
Roz|6.28.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Joe,
Why...is it not true that black schools do have low grades, drugs,
violence.
Unfortulately for these blacks, spicks, and poor...they didn't have
the opportunity to live in a white neighborhood that has good
school systems.
I'm talking about the New York/New Jersey Suburbs. I don't know
where ur from Joe.
But clearly, look @ the FACTs. The reason why MADISON NJ, Scarsdale
NY, Clarkstown NY have BLUE RIBBON schools is
because there are over 90% WHITE. Check out their neighors...Newark
NJ, Yonkers NY, Spring Valley NY...Prodominately BLACK...and
FAILING Schools.
Not b-cause these schools have LESS funding. Look at the FACTs.
Clarkstown NY (BLUE RIBBION) spends $12,000 per YEAR per student.
Spring Valley NY (BLACK schools) spend $15,000. So it's NOT MONEY.
IT's the COLOR Joe.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Using the term "racism" to describe a preference for racial
diversity and equality is just another of your semantic
games.
One of the definitions of racism is "discrimination based on race."
And by denying a black kid admission to a school because there's
"too many" black kids there already, you're discriminating against
him based on his race. So no, I'm not playing a semantic game
here.
Jennifer|6.28.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Having a check box on a bank application doesn't "force"
anyone to focus on race. The bank is perfectly free to ignore the
race of the applicant entirely.
Yet consider: a lot of loans these days are done over the computer
or over the phone; unlike the old days, it's now possible, even
likely, to get a loan from a bank without actually seeing any bank
employees in person. So let's assume that the bank actually WANTS
to discriminate against blacks; if they didn't have the
government-mandated anti-racism race-label box to look at, how
would they even know who to discriminate against?
|6.28.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Thanks, Roz. Man, it sure feels good to live in a country where racism is a thing of the past!
|6.28.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Jennifer,
And by denying a black kid admission to a school because
there's "too many" black kids there already, you're discriminating
against him based on his race.
Racism is discrimination. It does not follow that discrimination is
racism. The term has a pejorative connotation because of the way
that discrimination takes place, but at its root, discrimination is
as neutral a word as "sifting."
Is denying a kid admission to a school because he lives in a
different neighborhood than the one in which the school is located
"discrimination" in your usage? If so, then yest, the school is
discriminating on the basis of neighborhood. I would consider this
to be the equivalent of using admissions to create racial balance -
a legitimate public policy goal (lower transportation costs,
desegregation) is being furthered by using the admissions process
to influence the makeup of the student body.
But I would argue that there needs to be an element of promoting
injustice and inequality for the policy to move from the neutral
definition of the term "discrimination" to the pejorative sense in
which it is used in that definition of racism.
So, yes, by using the word "discrimination" to impute the
pejorative sense into the neutral sense, you are making a semantic
argument, knowingly or not.
|6.28.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Jennifer,
On your bank question, there have been investigations of exactly
that issue. The results have shown that people who provide
stereotypically black names, such as "LaToya Washington," get
rejected more than when the same person calls back with the same
information but gives a name like "Julie Worthington."
And please Jennifer, for the love of God, don't write back with a
comment about how racist I am for noticing that most people
consider "LaToya Washington" to be much more common among black
people. Just don't. I'm still clinging to some hope for you
here.
|6.28.07 @ 3:14PM|#
JasonL, Jennifer,
Just so you know, I don't for a second think that there is any
relationship between your position and that of Roz.
|6.28.07 @ 3:24PM|#
You know, for a second there, I feld bad after writing that
first response to Roz. Maybe that was unfair, joe. Maybe he just
phrased his point badly.
I gotta trust my insticts more.
Roz|6.28.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Oh Joe,
Don't lie 2 urself
There's no difference between my stated position and that of the
rest of white america.
My position, perhaps isn't as POLITE as those of the PRESIDENT,
SUPREME COURT, REPUBLICANS, and WHITE PEOPLE in general.
Today, we have the END of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. The END of REVERSE
DISCRIMINATION against WHITE PEOPLE THAT had NOTHING TO DO with the
situation that BLACKS and SPICKS are in TODAY. I feel bad 4
them...But I (nor my KIDS) should have to PAY an EFFECTIVELESS
PRICE of making them MOVE up into another social CLASS.
|6.28.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Roz -
You do realize that "spic(k)" is a hugely derogatory term, right?
Along with "nigger" and "faggot"?
Please stop using those terms... well, several posts ago would be
best, but right now would do.
Gilbert Martin|6.28.07 @ 4:02PM|#
"Define "success in the world," Gilbert.
People have most definitely proven that kids who grew up with
experiences knowing people of other races are more comfortable
operating with people of other races. Sounds like "success in the
world" to me."
Sounds to me like another feeble attempt to get around the fact
that there is no substantive proof of "diversity" having achieved
anything.
Roz|6.28.07 @ 4:10PM|#
The Further Upper Middle Class Kids stay away from Inner City
Kids (Blacks/Spanis) ... regardless of race...the Better.
Most Upper middle-class whites that NEVER had a BAD black
experience...That makes them LESS RACIST. And BLACKS and SPANISH
that ARE WILLING to ASSUMLATE to the WHITE POLITE CULTURE (and
leave their PUFF DADDY and 'me no speke de english BEHIND are very
much welcome to the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS).
Remember, in today's america...BLACKS are always welcomed to the
FRONT of the BUS...but ONLY if they can PASS for WHITE!
Haris Pilton|6.28.07 @ 4:48PM|#
I didn't think there were still people who actually based decisisons on ability by skin color instead of clothes.
|6.28.07 @ 9:38PM|#
Diversity for diversity's sake is wrong and racist. I loathe
diversity days at work and throughout the population and the larger
work force. Simply belonging to the same institution as someone
whose background is different than yours doesn't make you
enlightened or "better" than supposed rednecks or xenophobic people
that "section" themselves off from the rest of society. It's still
possible to be quite racist or exclusionary to other people and
belong to the same institution or go to the same school.
Highlighting differences only promotes hatred and/or distrust. I've
always wondered why we don't have togetherness days instead of
diversity days or at least in concert with them.
At least we'd be able to see what we have in common with one
another as American citizens. We'd see that we have common goals,
interests, and pursuits despite our cultural/racial differences.
Maybe we have different ways of expressing ourselves or achieving
our goals but noting the similarities seems reasonable given the
fickle and typically judgmental nature of Americans.
Instead, diversity days have become a day for the majority to gawk
at the minorities and make nice with them. People go to these
things simply to feel better about themselves. They go to say
things like "I'm doing my part" or "I'm not racist see I go to
diversity day every year". The problem is this usually lasts for
just a day. After the festivities, people go back to their daily
lives of sameness and comfort because the point of the diversity
day was to show how different everyone truly is than you are, "Just
look at how differently they do things than we do". This is
terrible and disgraceful given the true meaning of the Civil Rights
movement and the idea of social justice in general. Somewhere along
the line the ideals were lost and just painting a picture of
diversity became good enough. I think when an intelligent person
truly looks at human nature they will find that the average person
can't look at something that's different than their understood norm
(which most regard as sacrosanct)and regard it with true respect.
Most people can't do this and when they say they do they are
LYING.
The true test is to look at the totality of someone's life. Look at
what they say they believe and how they live their lives. Who are
they friends with? Do they go out of their way to actually try to
find true friends and confidants among "others" or do they just
simply say "I'm not racist" and expect you to take them at their
word? If a person has truly looked and not found then fine, but I'd
be willing to say most never look very far.
My point is that liberals try to pass themselves off as free and
devoid of racism but they're no different. It's just a softer
bigotry that's more harmful to a minority than direct racism. At
least a minority knows where a klansman's coming from. When it is
explicitly clear that you're regarded as different by the so called
enlightened it's hard to deal with and when you're treated that way
it can lead to despair for some.
I don't mean all liberals as I say this, but I do indict a large
and substantial number. If you've taken offense maybe you're one of
them but then again maybe you're not. Let's not play a numbers game
and start counting friends of different races, but we can take a
look at ourselves and see room for expanding our outlook and
breaking down self-imposed barriers. Also, this isn't to leave out
the conservatives. It's important to note that conservatives are
just as guilty. White conservatives are just as susceptible to
persuasion as others and feelings of diversity for diversity's
sake. I just find that most conservatives will be more up front
with you about their true feelings. They usually don't sugar coat
their feelings as liberals do. Plus, the response is more about
action than dealing with feelings. Minorities already feel like
shit when confronted with racism, so it seems that exploring
feelings bears no fruit. Just as trying to make people feel better
rectifies nothing. I guess we have to change the spirit of the
times as the Germans say and deal with people as people across the
board instead of the other.
*** Note
As I wrote this I purposely left out what other people know to be
other valid political viewpoints simply for expediency's sake. It
isn't meant to slight my fellow libertarians. Yet at the same time
I suppose you could be left or right leaning so maybe this note was
irrelevant.
Roz|6.29.07 @ 12:06AM|#
Marc,
Amazing article...I couldn't agree more.
This country is only 13% black and 15% hispanic. Since these
minorities have no voting power...I don't see why people make a bug
fuss about making them comfortable in a place that the really are
not welcomed. Most true native americans (whites) can deal with
working with minorities, dealing with them at malls and
supermarkets. Most are not condesending, racists, or have any ill
will toward these strangers. But one thing holds true, they'd
rather not live near them...and if given a choice (as can be seen
by the majority in favor a abolishing affirmative action), would
prefer that their kids not be exposed to their alien culture.
|6.29.07 @ 1:53AM|#
Roz,
That wasn't my point but I think you know that. Diversity for
diversity's sake is counter-productive and ultimately leads to more
divisiveness than anything else. Either you're a master at sarcasm
or a moron. I think I was completely clear in expressing how I
felt. I want America to function as a unit as more of a melting pot
than a salad bowl. I simply see forced diversity as an impediment
to becoming a functioning unit of a nation given the reality of a
country of idiots with more power than they deserve given the fact
that we're all riding on the coat tails of our fore-fathers (and
mothers).
People these days don't even try to identify with the other whether
you're in the majority or the minority. There are so many ways in
which we limit our full potential as a nation as to try to list
them here would be a crime to the truth. Expanding the realm of
your understanding of the country will only make the path clearer
for future generations. Roz if you are a moron just so you know one
day the white suburban neighborhoods will cease to exist the way
you know them and we as Americans would have missed opportunities
to bring everyone together to face the challenges that lie ahead
because a portion of the population decided to hide out instead of
participate. You can either look to the past for a time long
forgotten and unattainable where minorities weren't around or you
can accept reality and try to make the inevitable the great thing
that it's sure to be, with or without the likes of you.
|6.29.07 @ 8:21AM|#
"You've yet to make even the pretense of an argument for why
assigning a student to School A instead of School B is a "wrong" in
the first place." - joe
School A is a five minute bus trip from the student's home, getting
to School B requires the student to transfer buses that end up
taking an hour to get to school, the student has to get up earlier
and is therefore more likely to be overtired and his work suffers
as a consequence. The only reason anybody wants the student to go
to School B is because of the color of his skin, School A has too
many kids of his race and School B has too few.
joe, don't pretend diversity programs do not put negative external
consequences the students they effect. Consequences that only occur
because the kid is the wrong sort for the racial beancounters in
his school system. Consequences that the student's and their
families would choose to avoid if they had a choice
|6.29.07 @ 8:28AM|#
"They are concerned because the kids in the schools are missing
out on the important experience of socializing and working with a
racially and ethnicly diverse group of people."-joe
You think that makng sure that the kids have such an experience is
in the school's proper scope of work? For what reason?
|6.29.07 @ 8:45AM|#
Most true native americans (whites) can deal with working with minorities[...]
Do you have any idea what you're even saying? It's like a train
wreck.
|6.29.07 @ 10:25AM|#
MJ,
I'll just note that the court's decision didn't say anything about
weighing benefits vs. externalities. It said that making sure your
schools aren't segregated is verbotten, regardless of whether it
imposes any harms.
You think that makng sure that the kids have such an experience
is in the school's proper scope of work? For what
reason?
For the same reason that schools teach kids how to chew with mouths
closed in the cafeteria - because schools don't just impart
information about academic subjects, but prepare students to
function as members of society.
That'a cute little rant about "Diversity Days," Marc. Sadly, in
your hostility, you missed the fact that this decision wasn't about
"Diversity Days," but about the day to day experience of working
and socializing with a peer group in school, and whether that peer
group is going to be segregated or integrated.
|6.29.07 @ 10:33AM|#
If anyone is still reading this, I just wanted to throw out this
little gem from the "reasoning" of John Roberts:
To the extent the objective is sufficient diversity so that
students see fellow students as individuals rather than solely as
members of a racial group, using means that treat students solely
as members of a racial group is fundamentally at cross-purposes
with that end."
Let's leave aside the notion that school administrators who note a
student's race are "treating them solely as members of a racial
group," rather than as individuals whose personal characteristics
include their race along with the millions of other factors that
make up each of our identities.
Roberts is saying that, if a white third grader and a black third
grader are sitting next to each other, working as study buddies,
and playing together at recess, they aren't going to learn to see
each other as "individuals rather than solely as members of a
racial group" IF one of them was assigned to that school because
the administration had a desegregation plan.
However, if they end up sitting next to each other for some other
reason, THEN they are going to learn to relate to each other as
individuals.
Utter nonsense. This decision was a bag job from a group of
ideologues who knew how they were going to vote before they ever
picked up the file.
|6.29.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Gilbert Martin,
Some tangential evidence
Journal of Economic Geography Advance Access originally published
online on June 22, 2005
The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence from US
cities
Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano* and Giovanni Peri**
What are the economic consequences to U.S. natives of the growing
diversity of American cities? Is their productivity or utility
affected by cultural diversity as measured by diversity of
countries of birth of U.S. residents? We document in this paper a
very robust correlation: US-born citizens living in metropolitan
areas where the share of foreign-born increased between 1970 and
1990, experienced a significant increase in their wage and in the
rental price of their housing. Such finding is economically
significant and survives omitted variable bias and endogeneity
bias. As people and firms are mobile across cities in the long run
we argue that, in equilibrium, these correlations are consistent
with a net positive effect of cultural diversity on the
productivity of natives.
|6.29.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Gilbert M,
An interesting look at how you would go about showing the benefits
of diversity...
http://isp-aysps.gsu.edu/academics/conferences/conf2005/presentation5.pdf
|6.29.07 @ 11:51AM|#
A survey of the impacts of diversity in business...
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2003/spring/1a/
Like most things it depends on the details...
"the researchers found that a variety of contextual variables,
including an organization's culture, strategy and human resource
practices, helps to determine whether diversity boosts performance
or drags it down."
|6.29.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Journal of Social Issues
Volume 60 Issue 1 Page 17-34, April 2004
The Benefits of Diversity in Education for Democratic
Citizenship
* Patricia Gurin**Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Patricia Gurin, Department of Psychology, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 [e-mail: pgurin@umich.edu].
* Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda
* Gretchen E. Lopez
The social science statement in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
stressed that desegregation would benefit both African American and
White children. Eventually, it was recognized that integration,
rather than mere desegregation, was important for benefits to be
realized. A parallel argument is made in the legal cases concerning
affirmative action in higher education: educational benefits of
diversity depend on curricular and co-curricular experience with
diverse peers, not merely on their co-existence in the same
institution (Gurin, P., 1999, Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, &Gurin,
2002). Positive benefits of diversity were demonstrated in a study
comparing students in a curricular diversity program with students
in a matched control group (n = 174), and in a longitudinal survey
of University of Michigan students (n = 1670).
|6.29.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational
Outcomes.
Authors: Gurin, Patricia; Dey, Eric L.; Hurtado, Sylvia; Gurin,
Gerald
Source: Harvard Educational Review, v72 n3 p330-66 Fall 2002
Abstract: Using longitudinal student data from the University of
Michigan and the Cooperative Institutional Research Program,
effects of classroom diversity and informal interaction were
examined. Diversity experiences consistently and meaningfully
affected learning and civic outcomes, supporting the importance of
affirmative action and diversity efforts in higher education.
(Contains 81 references.) (SK)
|6.29.07 @ 12:16PM|#
A longer look at the issue.
https://dspace2.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/2152/1110/1/wilsonkd039.pdf
|6.29.07 @ 12:25PM|#
An in depth look at the direct issues the SCOTUS
addressed...
http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/News_Media/News_Releases/2006/07_RERv76n3_Welner(1).pdf
"Race-conscious policies are not inherently desirable. Ideally, the
United States
would have no need for them. Ideally, there would be no racial
achievement gap.
Ideally, there would be no segregation, de facto or otherwise.
Ideally, this would
not be a society "in which race unfortunately still matters," at
least with regard to
life chances (Grutter, 2003, p. 333). Yet the nation cannot move
toward these
ideals while concurrently educating generations of students in
racially isolated
schools. For policymakers willing to acknowledge and confront this
reality,
RCSAPs might be an important policy option for the near future.
Whether this
option will be available, however, depends on the constitutional
determination that
will soon be made by the Supreme Court."
|6.29.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Relative Importance of Contact Conditions in Explaining
Prejudice Reduction in a Classroom Context: Separate and
Equal?
* Ludwin E. Molina.
* Michele A. Wittig
abstract:Research on contact theory has typically presented four
major situational conditions of intergroup contact as separate and
equally important in creating an environment that leads to lower
levels of racial/ethnic prejudice. We empirically test this
"separate and equal" assumption with a variety of student samples
and outcome variables. Using data from three cohorts of high school
students, as well as one middle school sample, we demonstrate that
acquaintance potential and interdependence are the most consistent
and robust predictors of prejudice reduction, outgroup orientation,
and perceptions of a common ingroup identity. Findings concerning
differences in the relative importance of these situational
conditions for different racial/ethnic groups are also reported.
Implications for implementing optimal contact conditions for
prejudice reduction among various ethnic groups are drawn.
|6.29.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Sorry about that.
Gilbert's assertion that there was no empirical data to us caught
my attention.
Proof, no.
Hardly ever is with this kind of issue.
But data is out there to use in policy making decisions.
It seems to me that, even a brief convenience survey of the data
indicates that improved outcomes require active attention to the
issues, and opportunities for races to interact in meaningful ways.
Passive policies re-inforce the status quo...
One last study:
http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/06-02-006.pdf
We explore the dynamics of group inequality when segregation of
social networks places the initially less affluent group at a
disadvantage in acquiring human capital. Extending Loury (1977), we
demonstrate that (i) group differences in economic success can
persist across generations in the absence of either discrimination
or group differences in ability, provided that social segregation
is sufficiently great, (ii) there is a threshold level of
integration above which group inequality cannot be sustained, (iii)
this threshold varies systematically but non-monotonically with the
population share of the disadvantaged group, (iv) crossing the
threshold induces convergence to a common high level of human
capital if the less affluent population share is sufficiently small
(and the opposite, otherwise), and (v) a race-neutral policy that
reduces the cost of acquiring human capital can expand the range
over which reducing segregation can be Pareto-improving.
Gilbert Martin|6.29.07 @ 1:37PM|#
"Proof, no.
Hardly ever is with this kind of issue. "
Thats right there is no proof.
And "studies" cooked up by liberal academics are in the same
category as "polls" conducted by the New York Times - nothing but
propaganda pieces.
|6.29.07 @ 2:25PM|#
I don't think the question to ask is whether diversity actually
boosts job performance or not or improves test scores or not. It's
law that people should be hired for a job irregardless of their
racial background. What I take offense to is the almost worshiping
of the differences we have with one another. Why is it important to
have a day or week to highlight the fact that coworker X is
different than coworker Y. Isn't that obvious? Do we have to have a
day to show us that? I think we need to move on from this lazy
mindset. Simply, having diversity for diversity's sake is a
ridiculous notion. People should feel driven to befriend someone of
a different background than they are simply because they want to.
There shouldn't be a societal expectation or a guilt trip forced on
folks. People shouldn't feel the need to make friends with those of
another racial group by coercion as that cheapens the
relationship.
As for the issue as it pertains to schools I ask do black children
have to have white kids in the classroom to be successful? This
seems to be what some imply and I don't think it's necessarily that
way at all. In fact it's an insult to black children everywhere to
say that without whites in the classroom their self-esteem would be
so damaged that they couldn't possibly perform. I think that school
racial make-up should reflect the demographics of that district. We
can't socially engineer life to the ideal situation. Separate but
equal is not a fair labeling of this decision because this isn't a
mandadted "segregation". This segregation exists because people
choose to section themselves off from each other. Why do we blame
government for this when we do it to ourselves when we choose where
to live?
|6.29.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Gilbert,
And "studies" cooked up by liberal academics are in the same
category as "polls" conducted by the New York Times - nothing but
propaganda pieces.
Wow, that is some really deep thought you put into this...so what
would be a credible source? The voices in your head?
Marc,
I don't think you are framing this right. The value of integrated
schools/societies is not a comment on the relative value/skills of
one group or another. It is the combination, the cross-talk, the
interaction between the different groups that benefits everyone. I
think the Santa Fe Institute paper I linked above is interesting to
consider when thinking about this issue.
|6.29.07 @ 6:53PM|#
More from the Bowles et al article (Santa Fe Institute)...
"the degree of segregation is the result of equilibrium sorting
choices in residence, friendships, couples and the like, arising in
the absence of overt discrimination. Are there nonpaternalistic
ways that a policy maker could legitimately alter these patterns?
We think that there are. First, under quite general conditions
equilibrium sorting produces levels of segregation that are
Pareto-inefficient in the sense that an arbitrary reduction in
segregation could enhance the well being of members of both groups
(Schelling, 1978). In this case policies to reduce, say,
neighborhood segregation do not override individual preferences
over aggregate outcomes, but rather allow for their greater
satisfaction. Second, segregated networks may be the unintended
result of current policies whose reversal would lower η. For
example the degree of racial segregation of friendship networks in
schools appears to be affected by the extent of tracking, the
degree of cross grade mixing, and the extent of racial mixing in
extracurricular activities, all of which are subject to alteration
by school policies. (Moody, 2001). However, because the most
important social affiliates for the formation of human capital are
parents and siblings and these kin networks are highly racially
segregated, there may be quite stringent limits to the degree to
which segregation of the relevant networks can be reduced in the
absence of a reduction in racial assortment in childbearing."
|6.29.07 @ 11:53PM|#
"I'll just note that the court's decision didn't say anything
about weighing benefits vs. externalities. It said that making sure
your schools aren't segregated is verbotten, regardless of whether
it imposes any harms."-joe
joe, you did not ask for what the court said, you asked for a
reason why racial balancing was wrong, I provided one and you
dodged my answer. Since you brought it up: No the court did not
rule that the race based admissions di harm, the Court ruled that
the school district failed to prove they did any good to justify
using such a suspect criteria as race. Also your definition of
segregation has no legal standing. A segrated school is one where a
child is barred from admission because of his race.
Gilbert Martin|6.29.07 @ 11:53PM|#
"Wow, that is some really deep thought you put into this...so
what would be a credible source? The voices in your head?"
There aren't ANY credible sources that can prove "diversity" has
achieved anything. It's physically impossible to do so.
|6.30.07 @ 12:25AM|#
Gilbert, Gilbert, Gilbert...
I didn't ask what the credible sources would say, only who you
would consider them to be.
See, you seem to have some inside track here. You have THE
answer...diversity has achieved nothing.
Is this based on some evidence?
Short of evidence, do you have an authority you can cite?
Short of an authority do you even have a coherent argument for why
you believe your position?
"It's physically impossible to do so."
That is an empirical question, one that would require careful
research design, but hardly impossible. The trend I see from a
cursory look at the available evidence so far leans towards
positive benefits, with some caveats that passively integrating is
not equivalent to actively working to provide meaningful
interactions between communities.
If you've got some additional data that can show me where I am
wrong, please provide it.
If you don't. Don't think that CAPITAL letters and "scare quotes"
are going to be that persuasive.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245