A Supreme Court Ruling That Warms My Little Racist Heart

[Exsubmariner]

It's funny you mention this research. There is more research which has been done recently suggests that you can't force people to get along by forcing them into close proximity. Sorry if the previous link didn't work, click on the link in this article. (The word Discovers.)

From the Abstract of the above linked scholarly article by a noted Harvard Sociologist:

[ QUOTE ]
In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic
diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests
that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust
(even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]

From the Abstract of the above linked scholarly article by a noted Harvard Sociologist:

[ QUOTE ]
In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic
diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests
that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust
(even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may hold true on a small scale, but you don't have to look far for examples of this changing as you move up levels in a community.

EX: You and I are both exsubmariners. I'm sure there was at least one fellow submariner on one of your boats that pissed you right off almost like it was his job. Now on the boat, you'd give him little of your time/effort (aside from what was dutily RQD). Now lets say you pulled into a Liberty Port. Lets say, you happened across him in the "bar section" getting his arse kicked by 5 foreign dudes. Despite your personal distaste for him onboard, my bet is you, and your mates, would jump into the fray to save a shipmate.

A different example: I grew up in Brooklyn, NYC, in a very Italian Neighborhood. At the time, there was strong dislike (or at least it was portrayed that way) between young black guys and young Italian guys. (Fights and whatnot were standard for encroaching each other's "turf.") Now fast forward to both myself and a young black kid at Yankee Stadium cheering on the Yankees and we were all solid.

Another example: The stereotypical rivalry/dislike between Southerners/Texans and Northerners/Yankees. On 9/11, I'm pretty sure everyone from the South felt the same shock/horror/anger witnessing their fellow American's being murdered grandscale.

Back to the primary example: I don't agree at all with forcing people to coeducate via forced bussing or whatnot, but I do think society as a whole can/will/has benefited when different cultures/races/etc learn to coexist/trust, especially at younger ages when most prejudices are either discarded or learned.

[jt082005]

I like the ruling and think it is really basic...if you want to say a school has to be 15% black, 10% asian....etc then you are making the admissions to the school based on race (which is what they are saying you should not do). Basically, you just don't determine if someone can get in or not based on race....easy enough

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy to see that society is beginning to accept the premise that racism goes all ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for conservatives to admit that racism comes from their direction AT ALL.

But while I'm waiting, it's good to know you're gonna finally get a handle on that "black racism" problem. The black man has been keeping the white man down for far too long anyway. Hopefully, this decision will be a first step toward integrating white students into the better schools currently reserved only for black children. Who knows, we may now live to see white children going on into medicine, law, the sciences -- areas once reserved only for the children of black elites. Yep, thank goodness the iron fist of black racism is finally starting to crumble, so that white children can finally stand on an equal footing with Black America.

(Now, pardon me while I step through this looking glass.)


q/q

[jt082005]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy to see that society is beginning to accept the premise that racism goes all ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for conservatives to admit that racism comes from their direction AT ALL.

But while I'm waiting, it's good to know you're gonna finally get a handle on that "black racism" problem. The black man has been keeping the white man down for far too long anyway.

(Now, pardon me while I step through this looking glass.)


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

haha...are you crazy? Conservatives will unfortunately admit some of their supporters are racist, and so are some supporters of Liberals...your point is what that racism exist in many places?

And, now one type (or form) is better/worse than another [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
And, now one type (or form) is better/worse than another

[/ QUOTE ]

exsubmariner is asserting "equivalence" that flies in the face of reality and all of American history.

Furthermore, that assertion of "equivalence" is patently self-serving. It's only purpose is to say "well, yes, my side is racist but if I say everyone else is racist too, then everyone is equivalent and we can just ignore the racism question".

Hint: you don't have institutional segregation when all sides are "equivalent".


q/q

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for liberals to admit that racism comes from their direction AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

BTW, your pic is damned confusing. Keeps making me think you're a Republican.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for conservatives to admit that racism comes from their direction AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that a SCOTUS decision that states that more factors than race need to be considered i.e. the decision can't solely be decided due to someone's race is called racist.

In Europe the term that we use for "affirmative action" is often called "positive discrimination." It would hardly be politically correct in the U.S. to call something what it actually is discrimination. BTW I've gone on record on this forum as stating that I'm for "affirmative action" on a limited basis. I have no illusions that on the limited basis I'm referring to I'm supporting discrimination based on race and/or gender when I support "affirmative action." At least I admit it though and don't hide behind some euphamistic baloney.

[MidGe]

[ 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]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the case involved the bussing of white students into a predominately black school. So, the people being discrimanted against in this case were the white kids, who would be bussed away from better schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no really "discrimination" here "against" white kids. There was "discrimination", at least in the sense that Seattle and Louisville were making classifications based on race, but there was absolutely no effort made by either school district to send "black kids to the better schools and white kids to the bad schools". The plans were put in place to achieve racial integration; ostensibly, since all of the schools were in the same district, each had equal access to the same funding -- "school quality" wasn't really at issue. In Seattle, something along the lines of 100 black children were displaced from their "first-choice" schools, which of course contradicts the notion that this policy was some kind of policy wrought from white-guilt to punish pale children. There were black students who were also bearing the brunt of the malevolent effects of these plans.

What schools students and their parents were choosing may or may not have involved concerns over quality; some students may have just wanted to go to school close to home, or where their friends were attending, or where their older siblings went, or close to where the parents work, etc. Again, all of these schools were inside the same district; these aren't state plans like METCO in Massachusetts, where minority students are (voluntarily) sent from urban inner city schools systems into suburban schools, which are better funded and seemingly of better quality; in both Seattle and Louisville, these are homogeneous and discrete school districts deciding how to place students within their own systems -- so in theory, the schools were funded relatively equally, given that they were all part of the same district.

As an aside, both Louisville and Seattle enacted completed voluntary integration plans; neither were compelled by courts to do so. So here we have a local school boards autonomously making decisions, and along come those "activist" judges from the federal government, meddling in the affairs of the local government -- and conservatives everywhere stand up and cheer. How interesting that the right-wing talking point machine is strangely silent about that intrusive and meddlesome federal government interfering with the affairs of unsuspecting locals, who just want to live their lives without those pushy, ivory tower judge types butting in.