A Supreme Court Ruling That Warms My Little Racist Heart

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
1) "White kids" weren't discriminated against; racial classification was occurring, no doubt -- but it certainly wasn't "against" white students, unless of course you think making white students attend school with black kids is somehow causing them harm.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, when you classify white kids according to their race, you aren't discriminating against them, then?

[ QUOTE ]
The case (at least in Seattle) didn't involve "busing white students into predominantly black schools" because their plan was such that THERE WERE NO PREDOMINATELY BLACK SCHOOLS.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about Kentucky? Doesn't that count? So what I said didn't apply to every single case, so I must not understand what was going on? Whatever.

[UATrewqaz]

Cons: We waste tons of fuel, manhours, and money busing children against their wills to schools their parents don't want them to go to.

Pros: We soothe liberal white guilt a tiny bit.

[andyfox]

The argument, for college admissions, went something like this: Blacks are X% of the population; yet they're only X-Y% of college admissions. They're scoring worse on entrance tests. They're not genetically inferior intellectually. Therefore the reason why they're scoring worse, and therefore being admitted less, is that they're not prepared as well in their pre-college education, for a variety of reasons, the most important one being the general circumstances of racism and the legacy of racism. That is, the fact that they didn't do as well on tests and were underrepresented in college was de facto evidence of discrimination.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument, for college admissions, went something like this: Blacks are X% of the population; yet they're only X-Y% of college admissions. They're scoring worse on entrance tests. They're not genetically inferior intellectually. Therefore the reason why they're scoring worse, and therefore being admitted less, is that they're not prepared as well in their pre-college education, for a variety of reasons, the most important one being the general circumstances of racism and the legacy of racism. That is, the fact that they didn't do as well on tests and were underrepresented in college was de facto evidence of discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this argument. I've made it a few times myself and its my main justification for AA.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least I admit it though and don't hide behind some euphamistic baloney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, affirmative action is a positive thing, it is trying to redress an injustice, not creating a new one! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree basically. I actually don't have a problem with using the word discrimination though because showing preference for one particular race is discrimination. It would be ludicrous if immediately after the Civil War that people stated the government shouldn't give extra support to former slaves because it would be discrimination. Almost as ludicrous would be to state that showing racial preference is wrong because it's discrimination after a century of Jim Crow laws with their effect on culture in the U.S. My take anyway. Still discrimination though and I readily admit it as well as support the events that ended Jim Crow laws. IMO one of the best things that's happened in this country over the last 50 years if not the best.

Also remember I wrote race and/or gender so we're not talking about just race. Women sufferage didn't become the law of the land in the U.S. until 1920 i.e. it came after the slaves were freed.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Positive Discrimination....heh.... I like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do too.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) "White kids" weren't discriminated against; racial classification was occurring, no doubt -- but it certainly wasn't "against" white students, unless of course you think making white students attend school with black kids is somehow causing them harm.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, when you classify white kids according to their race, you aren't discriminating against them, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

If "discrimination" merely means "their race was recognized and a decision was made because of it", then yes, they were discriminated against.

If "discrimination" means "action based on prejudice resulting in unfair treatment of other people" -- the way I think of "discrimination" when I hear the word -- then no, white students weren't discriminated against in any way, shape or form. There was no "prejudice" against white people, and the "unfair consequences", if we concede that there were some, were felt by both black and white students; hence why I went to the pains of noting that nearly 100 black students were displaced from their first-choice schools in Seattle.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The case (at least in Seattle) didn't involve "busing white students into predominantly black schools" because their plan was such that THERE WERE NO PREDOMINATELY BLACK SCHOOLS.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about Kentucky? Doesn't that count? So what I said didn't apply to every single case, so I must not understand what was going on? Whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single case? The Supreme Court ruled on exactly two cases, so there were only TWO school districts in question in this SCOTUS case -- Seattle and Louisville. Maybe what you said should apply to at least one of them, right?

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Your characterizations about "busing white students" to "predominately black schools" miserably fails to describe both the Seattle and Louisville integration plans.

We already discussed how it missed the mark in Seattle. In the Jefferson County School District in Louisville -- (Jefferson County Schools were the defendant in this case) students at each level may apply to attend schools outside of their residential area. School principals then make assignment decisions -- many factors are considered, and race is one of them; while some variance exists, the guideline is for each school is to seek a black student enrollment of at least 15 percent and no more than 50 percent – that is, about 15 percent below or above the District-wide black student population of 34 percent.

So yeah, there's not a single predominately black school in either case, because both integration plans prevent that from occuring -- THAT'S WHY THEY'RE INTEGRATION PALNS. I mean, when you were typing out that nonsense about busing white students to "predominately black schools", didn't it strike you as a little funny that, at the crux of these cases were integration plans? -- you know, plans to PREVENT racial isolation? The whole point of these integration plans is to prevent the existence of predominately black schools.

But nice try playing the white-victim card anyway. It almost worked, except some of us actually pay attention to this stuff, and read the rulings, and don't get our information from right-wing propaganda organs like WorldNetDaily.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
There's another way to look at it. Proponents of affirmative action would argue that if there is a situation where blacks are underrepresented in a certain population---say, admissions to a university--then discrimination must be at work to some degree.

[/ QUOTE ]
This assumes that black intelligence, motivation, personality traits, etc are entirely equivalent to white/asian at a genetic level. I see a lot of evidence that this isn't the case, and little evidence that it is. For example, Asians appear to have superior spatial intelligence to whites. Either way, it's far from a settled question, and until it is the whole premise on which your argument rests is entirely flawed.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument, for college admissions, went something like this: Blacks are X% of the population; yet they're only X-Y% of college admissions. They're scoring worse on entrance tests. They're not genetically inferior intellectually. Therefore the reason why they're scoring worse, and therefore being admitted less, is that they're not prepared as well in their pre-college education, for a variety of reasons, the most important one being the general circumstances of racism and the legacy of racism. That is, the fact that they didn't do as well on tests and were underrepresented in college was de facto evidence of discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does putting people into an environment that they are not prepared for help them? I'm talking about the individual people here.

[almostbusto]

so am i reading that blacks in racially mixed schools perform better than blacks in predominantly black schools.

and this fact is being used as a basis for wanting more racial diversity.

it seems very likely to me that the racial mix of schools is not a causal factor of performance. doesn't it seem more likely that:

rich black kids go to suburban, racially mixed schools. rich black kids do well. really poor black kids go to inner city schools that aren't really racially mixed. poor black kids do poorly. so at the two ends of the spectrum, obviously the rich kids out perform the really poor kids, which slants the statistics making the racial mix correlated to the economic well being of a student which is in turn correlated (or potentially also a causal factor) of the educational level of black people.