Apartheid in Our Schools

[defendandprotect]

Apartheid in Our Schools

By Derrick Z. Jackson
Globe Columnist / September 21, 2010

WHEN PRESIDENT Obama took office in January 2009, the UCLA’s Civil Rights Project reported that segregation patterns in public schools “were far worse in 2006 than in 1988.’’ Eighteen months later, a new study has shown how much worse the patterns are. Diversitydata.org, supported by the Kellogg Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, has published figures compiled by Northeastern University researchers that found “gross levels of disparity.’’


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/09/21/apartheid_in_our_schools/

[csziggy]

1. Broken link n/t

[defendandprotect]

2. Fixed it -- apologies ...

[csziggy]

3. That sounds worse than when I was in school in the late sixties

When desegregation was new in my Central Florida, the only way to avoid it was to send kids to private schools. For most families, that was not affordable.

[Solly Mack]

4. k/r

[TheMadMonk]

5. You got apartheid in schools 'coz you never got it out of your society.

The successful enactment of laws and even prosecution of the worst offenders has had no real world effect because you have never been willing to address the underlying issue. Freedom of expression MUST be curtailed BEFORE it limits another's.

A person may hold any damned fool idea they please, but no person may express or attempt to impose an idea that sets one man above another on the basis of ideology or birthright.

[defendandprotect]

7. Underfunding of schools, actual destruction of schools .... has worked

-- withdrawing of funds from public schools for privatization --

charter schools, religious schools!!

As long as we have capitalism we do not have economic-democracy --

And the prison system is still working to enslave people of color --

Elites are always interested in enslaving an identifiable group of people --

and depriving them of an education has always been one of their main tools!!

[kelly1mm]

8. Curtailed as in government action/prohibition? What about the 1st ammendment? nt

[TheMadMonk]

9. What about my right NOT to have your(or anyone elses) stoopid ideologhy...

...rammed down my throat.

The US is full of people who would use, or have used the law to curtail and even dictate individual's actions and thoughts entirely at odds with the constitution. And every sigle one of them used 1A rights to get the ball rolling.

McCarthy got what he wanted through "FREE SPEECH" and the moment he got it he used more "FREE SPEECH" to talk bully boys into making damned sure that he got to defined what was and wasn't protected free speech.

You got bloody curtailment anyways, with right wing extremists doing most of the deciding what should be limited.

This is not something which can be covered in a few words.

Any speech which seeks to elevate some above others, to direct their "moral behaviour" SHOULD NOT BE FREE.

[Synicus Maximus]

10. So because some people steal or kill, I should not be allowed to

speak out against murder and robbery because that would be trying to direct "moral behavior"

[TheMadMonk]

12. No, because both behaviours take from others.

Prosletising, to forbid behaviour that offends without harm, is a whole 'nother animal.

[kelly1mm]

13. I do not believe you have the right not to be offended by other's

speech. If you object to the speech you can walk away, or use your 1a rights to counter the speech. What you cannot do in our current system is have the government shut down and/or punish what you consider objectionable speech. While I do grant you that the system can and has led to the abuses you cite, I believe the alternative would be worse. Can you imagine the types of speech the Bush administration would have found objectionable?

[TheMadMonk]

14. It's not just about the degree of offence felt. It's about the guiding force...

...behind the offensive speech.

Getting up on a soapbox and calling all around sinners is/should be protected free speech. Getting up behind a pulpit and exhorting the congregation to get out there and convert some sinners should not be.

[kelly1mm]

16. Could you explain why exhorting a congregation to convert sinners

should not be protected under the 1st ammendment? If you have already explained your thoughts on a different thread I would love to read them there as you did say your reasoning was complicated. I am interested though as it definately sounds different than the status quo.

[TheMadMonk]

17. Because it is incitement to assault when the attention is not welcome.

Because it becomes assault with intent when medical attention, schooling, etc. are made contingent on conversion.

Because the average hellfire and brimstone sermon would be "uttering threats for financial gain." in another forum.

Because it elevates one group of human beings (We the Saved) over another, (They the Sinners).

What makes them any different to the KKK or any other bunch of white supremacists declaring themselves superior on the basis of skin colour? After all it is the Church and its members who get to define membership requirements and what constitutes a sinner.

ANY speech which dehumanifies others in the least aspect is suspect, and absent very clear redeeming value should have no place outside of fictional dialogue and narative.

[kelly1mm]

18. Thanks! Interesting thoughts. Although comparing churches to the

KKK or white supremacists, if one were to accept the comparison, would not in itself bolster your argument as being a white supremacist or a KKK member is not illegal either.


Finally, you wrote:

"ANY speech which dehumanifies others in the least aspect is suspect, and absent very clear redeeming value should have no place outside of fictional dialogue and narative"

I agree that any dehumanizing speech should be condemned and the speaker derided. However, I don't want the government making such speech illegal. My problem is who decides. Would calling the rethugs rethugs dehumanize them? What would Bush think?

[TheMadMonk]

19. Depends on what KKK et al actually say.

"Go out and convert sinners." and "Go out and kill niggers." Same thing different actions. Both incitement to...


Who else but the governent can decide?

Most of the rest of the western world survives without any explicitly granted rights of free speech. What we do if we feel strongly enough about anything specifically banned is sue for the right to say it. If we win the govt. picks up the tab. And that seems to keep governments from attempting to outlaw things on a whim or over personal embarrasment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. You have no such right.

You have the right not to agree with my ideology, but no right to be protected from hearing about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Dangerous nonsense.

Saying that freedom of speech doesn't cover the right to "express or attempt to impose an idea that sets one man above another on the basis of ideology or birthright" would make it possible to prosecute just about any speech you can think of.

Certainly, your own post clearly attempts to set people who agree with your anti-free-speech ideology above those who disagree with it, and impose that idea on us.

[TexasObserver]

6. recommend

[elleng]

11. Really not a surprise.

As long as we live apart, our children are educated apart; nothing 'insidious' about it, thoughly HIGHLY REGRETFUL for our community. If/when our schools populations would reflect our workplaces, we'd be better off.

[inna]

15. too late to rec, but at least a kick

[fascisthunter]

20. here's another kick (nt)