Today's P-I editorial asks the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the Seattle School District's wish to use racial profiling in school assignments. While I frequently criticize the P-I for factually incorrect and/or foolish editorials, this one is completely unhinged:
The hateful, comprehensive U.S. apartheid system continues to affect how communities are organized, where families live and what schools children attend. Some Americans think that, because most apartheid laws were gone by 1970, the issue is closed.It is preposterous to equate South Africa's former enforced system of Apartheid and ethnic clustering in America, which is a function of non-race-based economics and voluntary home choices, and most importantly, permeable and impermanent. Any vestiges of legally enforced segregation were eliminated here decades ago. Which remaining "apartheid laws" is the P-I referring to? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 04, 2006 12:49 PM | Email This
If the MSM says it enough it becomes true in the minds of most.
Goebbels would be proud.
Posted by: Jack Burton on December 4, 2006 12:55 PMHaving said that, there's no defense for the P-I's gobsmackingly intemperate screed. Worst. Editorial. Ever.
Posted by: DJ on December 4, 2006 01:00 PMMore and more of those who happen to have a physical trait that is less common than others around them see that correctly as simply an accident of geography, circumstance, history, etc. and not as a definition of who they are and what they are capable of achieving.
This scares the hell out of the elite left that relies on Marxist classes to form their theoretical and imaginary oppression. Thus, they keep up with the continual chant of oppression and racial emphasis regardless of the colorblind world in which we now live.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 4, 2006 01:43 PMI guess that's why so many people flock here from everywhere else every year? And some die trying?
Please, people. Get a grip.
Posted by: Misty on December 4, 2006 01:46 PMwell, let's start with the PI and Times elites--where do THEY live? White Center? their kids--which schools do THEY attend? do their kids volunteer in the Peace Corps? do they sponsor Tent Cities in their personal yards, neighborhoods or communities?
if so great an idea, do they want THEIR neighborhoods to "reflect" the percentages of 'enlightened' city's races?
how about Detroit %'s for Medina or Bellevue? San Fran? Gary IN? Topeka? Muncie, IN? let's be "tolerant"--Hamtrammick MI diverse ethnic percentages for Woodway, Laurelhurst or Queen Anne Hill residents? kick out the existing homeowners for a more rainbow representation?
do the elites want to break up (as racist and exlusive) the "quaint international districts" or "chinatowns?" or "greektowns?"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 4, 2006 02:32 PM"Sure, you don't hate blacks, you just don't think they need a helping hand"
Um? Isn't it the very definition of "prejudiced" to automatically presume that skin color means someone needs a helping hand?
Posted by: anon on December 4, 2006 02:59 PM.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on December 4, 2006 03:59 PMThe PI editorial just proves there isn't anyone functioning with more than a brainstem on the editorial board. These goofballs obviously don't understand what this case is all about and the comparison to apartheid is just ridiculous. If you use the "logic" presented by these clowns, then the Seattle Schools should be taken to task for not having enough white students since the demographics of the schools do not reflect the demographics of the city.
But, hey, let's not do any research or fact checking. We certainly wouldn't want people to think that the PI actually hires journalists who can write with something other than a big crayon and wide line paper. Here's a newsflash for the editorial board: busing has destroyed every school system it was forced upon. Academic achievement went down in flames and the very people you wanted to force your Marxist ways upon packed up and left for the suburbs. And this paper still can't figure out why readership is declining.
Posted by: Burdabee on December 4, 2006 06:11 PMThe first reason concerns union goons and thugs like ivan; if teachers actually had a choice of being represented by the union many would opt out. Of course the queen has decreed that people don't have a choice about being represented by a union. Quid pro quo? Also, with a smaller dues paying base slime balls like ivan would have to get a real job. I'm sure ivan has in the back of his mind the quote from Ghostbusters, "They expect results!" I would wager that ivan couldn't keep a job in the private sector.
The second reason is that if vouchers or charter schools were available people would take the money and enroll their children in better schools. Can you imagine Lakeside and other elite private schools admitting underprivileged minority students? THE HORROR! The elite's children would be forced to rub elbows with the great unwashed.
Talk about apartheid. The liberals enforce serration by denying access to private elite schools by others than those they deem less worthy. This is so reminiscent of the Soviet rulers; live in luxury while the peasants live in squalor.
The only choice that libs support is the right to abort a child. Once that child is born the libs want to remove all choice from her life.
When will the American electorate wake up to the fact that the real racists and anti-choice bigots are liberals?
Probably never.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 4, 2006 09:41 PMserration=segregation
Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 4, 2006 09:46 PM2. The TAF Academy, under its guidelines on its website, would be a charter school. The district doesn't even have a written policy on public/private partnerships so it really doesn't have any business taking yet another one on until it does. The TAF Academy was handled very badly by both the district and the TAF foundation so that the community it wants to serve mistrusts it. Rainier Beach students are against it. If TAF can't convince that community, I'm not sure they should be there. That said, the TAF Academy sounds like a wonderful idea but keep in mind, they've never run a school before. It's not like, "hey kids, let's put on show!"
The district is paying for the lawyers and, if they lose at the Supreme Court, will be paying lawyers' fees to the plaintiffs.
Lastly, I'm against the capital bond measure that is coming out in Feb. (not the levy). The capital list does not have any relevance to school closures and consolidations, is not the buildings that need the most help and, speaking of charter schools, is going to build a new building for the New School Foundation school (also called New School). It will be a brand-new, state of the art building with a health clinic that will be a K-8 school. New School is a great program but completely unsustainable as a public school. This new K-8 will be built a mile from another relatively new building housing another K-8 (African-American Academy) that is chronically underenrolled plus there is an elementary school right in New School's backyard. Does this make any logical sense? Plus, if TAF Academy gets put into Rainier Beach (also within that mile of the other 3 schools), you'll have more middle school capacity. The cost of this to taxpayers is about $65M. But see, if you allow foundations to wave money in cash-poor districts' faces and the public says "allow innovation", this is what happens. You get a foundation bullying the district into giving it a new building and getting itself to the head of the capital bond list.
Be careful what you wish for. You're paying for it.
Posted by: Stacia Ciaravalli on December 4, 2006 10:18 PMLiberals claim to know what's better for one and would make decisions for the individual to further the "common good."
Liberals believe in income redistribution, and that the state has a higher place in society than the individual. See the Seattle Public School District's old web page.
Of course, as a former active duty military officer I'm not smart enough to think for myself, so I guess I should look to my betters for a lesson on how to think.
Guess that MBA and JD I spent all those years earning are just the product of diploma mills.
Right Jon Carry?
Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 4, 2006 10:28 PM1. I heard the Spady's called racist.
2. What were the untruths that they were peddling
about charters?
3. I wonder why the Rainier Beach students are
against the academy.
4. I have yet to get an answer from either Bruce or Ivan to my questions. Could you comment on the
questions below:
118. 1. I never said that religion per se makes a student achieve. But, if a school which is religious produces results in terms of its students basic education, is the choice prohibited simply because the school happens to be religious? Basic education is defined in the RCW. That is a standard all schools should meet.
2. Point #1 is not pablum, studies have proved that children rise to meet epectations. There is a famous study of files getting mixed up. Students that should have been labeled underachievers were labeled achievers. They were treated as achievers by teachers and did better than expected on tests.
3. Guess I'm just stupid, even though I have an MBA in economics. This transfer of massive amounts of money from public schools is an interesting statement. Can you cite some actual studies on the economic impact. The Florida program was limited to those in failing schools.
4. Gee, the student loan programs and military college savings allow choice at religious schools. Has this choice increased religious divisions because some one is able to go to Brandeis or Seattle Pacific?
5. All a charter school is an insitutional structure which allows some licensing or granting authority to set forth specific conditions for the operation of the school. What the insitutional structure allows is the freedom to innovate. In many states they are exempt from many regulations, not the requirement to produce basic education standards, and they can do things like:
1. Longer school days
2. Longer school terms
3. uniforms
4. single gender classrooms
5. Discipline
6. Other innovations
I think the real issue is ideologues can't force their ideology on everyone, no matter what is best for children. The politbureau wants to keep control.
Posted by WVH at December 1, 2006 01:12 AM
33. Ivan and Others of Like Mind:
1. I do not accept the guidelines of Bush's NCLB.
Specifically, what don't you accept about the definition of a failing school? Cite specific examples?
What is your specific definition of a successful school? What elements are you looking at specifically?
What is your definition of a failing school? Define the elements specifically?
2. I oppose charters but I do not do so out of fear.
Why, specifically do you oppose charters?
Would you oppose a charter school district where every school is allocated a per pupil amount and how they use it to achieve basic education in their population of students as defined by the RCW is up to them? If so, specifically, why?
3. I am not a "progressive."
We finally found something that we both can agree upon
Posted by: WVH on December 4, 2006 10:49 PMA buddy of mine works for the Seattle School District in a teaching position. He is white. He tells me of an attempt by the "professional development" gurus to make him read a book several years ago called "We Can't Teach What We Don't Know." He described it as a book that explains why you should feel guilty to be white and a teacher. He showed me the book and I saw this passage in the forward:
"...the transformation of White teachers is defined by both pain and possibility. Coming to terms with one's identity is a formidable task. This is true for all people, but for Whites especially troublesome because admitting that they have benefited unfairly from their White skin is not only personally disturbing, but also challenges head-on the myths of meritocracy and fair play with which they have been raised. This is a necessary process that Whites must undertake if they are to join the multicultural dialogue in an honest way."
A chart in this book tells of three stages of "White Identity Orientations." (1) Fundamentalist; (2) Integrationist; (3) Transformationist. In discussing the emotional responses to discussions about racism, for example, the Fundamentalist reacts with anger, denial, defensiveness/avoidance, whereas the Transformationist reacts with "acknowledgement, empathy, enlightened aversion to oppression, and responsibility without guilt"
I started to read the book, but got so angry about the crap contained in the pages I had to stop reading for fear of putting my head through the wall. If you don't acknowledge your guilt for being white (which apparently stems from any and all actions of your ancestors), then you are not enlightened. This is what they have teachers focusing on in school and their "professional development" courses instead of how to be a better math, reading, English or science teacher.
And we wonder why the Seattle schools are so bad. At least we know the source for their racist web-page that was removed earlier this year. My buddy tells me that the Seattle School District distributed this book to ALL teachers in 2002.
BTW, the ISBN for this book is 0-8077-3800-X if you find this all hard to believe.
Posted by: Michael H on December 5, 2006 12:08 AMMaybe you're right about him being a SSD employee, they actually believe that drivel.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 5, 2006 10:02 AM