Skip to main content

quote:
there are plenty of black conservatives who want to eliminate AA...and neglect public schools by diverting money to voucher programs that are not able to serve the needs of all black kids



I am a supporter of Vouchers where necessary.

I am of the belief that all children should be have access to a quality education. If the government school system fails to provide such quality then I choose to look toward the PARENTS/STUDENTS best interests rather than protect the SCHOOL SYSTEM and their related teachers union.

On a recent trip to my hometown of Philly I couldn't help but notice the great number of CHARTER SCHOOLS that have started. These were created by concerned parents and educators who vowed to take the education of their children into their own hands after years of disappointment in WAITING for officials to get their act together all the while failing their children.

I have thus far visited 3 KIPP Academies in Atlanta to evaluate the job that they are doing. They are going into communities with a high concentration of poverty and underperformance in education and opening charter schools to provide the educational service and environment that these kids need. They extend the school day and require that the students and their parents buy into the rules of the school. Thus far KIPP has gotten results that the public schools in the area have not.

I refuse to make a blanket statement against charter schools and vouchers, towing the line of what some folks who claim to represent "Black interests" tell me I should believe when the evidence on the ground says otherwise.

In my view the folks who deny the obvious and have us WAIT in PUBLIC SCHOOLS for them to get their act together are just as harmful as the so-called Black Conservatives who are following their ideology rather than altering their views to the FACTS that are on the ground. Since there are more of these Progressive Fundementalists their harm is amplified.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

I am a supporter of Vouchers where necessary.

I am of the belief that all children should be have access to a quality education.


Then how can you support vouchers which, by definition, can only help a small number of children - leaving most behind in sub-standard schools?
This voucher scam is just another way for the rich, and the racists in America to be able to afford to send their children to private schools at the expense of the REAL taxpayers, the working class; it serves two folds: have taxpayers pay for re-segregation efforts under the guise of school choice vouchers, and have even the lower middle class and working poor taxpayers fund educating America's riches and wealther children.

Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money ear marked for Vouchers where it is needed, in the public school systems, especially since the parents of the students in the public school systems are the primary taxpayers in this country?

I really cannot see my tax dollars paying for rich children to attend school are a chosen few Black, or poor, or anyother children to attend private schools while my children attend the local public school, any more than my parents could see their tax dollars going to primarily funding all the white schools, while giving little or nothing the Black schools before integration.

The Voucher program SOUNDS like a good idea, but for who or for which chosen few, and at the expense of which masses?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:


Then how can you support vouchers which, by definition, can only help a small number of children - leaving most behind in sub-standard schools?


The same reason why YOU support Affirmative Action which only help a small number of people applying for College, leaving most behind without advanced education.

(Stop listening to so many talking points)

****

The thought of WAITING for our public schools to be fixed rather than given folks options to find other more competent sources for education if ridiculous.

The same folks who demand smaller class sizes for public schools so that these schools can be retools are OPPOSED to allowing this reducation to be had via vouchers or charter schools which WOULD provide smaller class sizes in the public school that they depart from.

Finally the argument that the students left behind in the public schools will be the worst of the worst does not fly with me.

On the one hand we can ask that the parents of these bad kids left behind to take responsibility for their children. The policies used at KIPP Academy are effective at doing this.

On the other hand we can focus special attention on these children rather than having those who want to learn to be held behind as these others disrupt the class.

Any way you spin it THE CASE AGAINST VOUCHERS DOES NOT STAND FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STUDENTS AHEAD OF THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND TEACHERS UNIONS
Apparently there is not to be any defense/support for holding up the position of the petitioners on VRA Extension. I will expand my reasons for dissatisfaction, anyway, for the 'greater good.'

The rationale of the petitioners offered to explain, if not to justify, pursuit of temporary protection by the VRA.

'Although some people question whether the Voting Rights Act should be made permanent or should apply uniformly throughout the nation, civil rights lawyer Ted Stephens, Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, indicates that such efforts, no matter how well-meaning, constitute a "trap" that may render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutionally unenforceable.'

Where is the trap here? Hoping of course the 'unconstitutionally unenforceable' is unintended.

There are two issues mentioned. The first is permanence. The second is uniform application across the nation.

Such efforts says, Ted Stevens, 'constitute a trap' on the basis of constitutionality.

Application nationwide, and/or permanence approach unconstitutionality. These precepts are outside of the intended scope of the constitution.

Is this what he is saying?

The constitution is a construction of the rule-of-law that is applicable not only nationwide, but wherever the flag flies.

Please tell us that is true.

Mr. Stevens goes on to say:


'Race-conscious remedies for racial discrimination must be narrowly tailored to address a legitimate governmental interest. Thus, provisions of the act probably cannot be applied indefinitely, or to regions of the country with no comparable history of race discrimination.'

There is specificity.

Section 4(a) of the VRA, which is the subject of discussion here, is a 'race-conscious solution, AND it is specific in that it directly addresses 'race and color'.

Further...that terminology is the terminology used in 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally, the law (VRA) is specific to protection of the 'right to vote'.

This also is the cited intent of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

And...Section 2 of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact legislation to enforce the amendment.

Clearly, drafters of the amendment anticipated there would be difficulty in getting the States, and citizens of those States to obey the 'rule' of the amendment.

Should one wonder why such 'clear vision' was held by the drafters, you need to look at certain facts of historical behavior of these entities.

1. The 'right to vote' is not, specifically, conferred on anyone by the Constitution of the United States.

2. The 'right to vote' is inherent to citizenship.

3. Citizenship in any, and every, State is inherent in, and coincident with, the citizenship of the United States.

Citizenship was originally automatic with residency. It was implicit. It was assumed.

But that didn't apply to Africans in America. It required the 14th Amendment.

Some States said 'Okay'. Many States said, 'No. It's a 10th Amendment issue.'

Thus the 15th Amendment intended to 'protect the right to vote'. It DID NOT granted, or otherwise imbue, citizens with the right.

Congress did not see fit, could not be persuaded, or simply refused to create a mechanism to enforce the 15th Amendment even though fully, and specifically, authorized to do so until forced by the Civil Rights Movement in 1965.

But STILL hedged the issue. THE PROTECTION WAS MADE TEMPORARY IN THE LAW; THE MECHANISM FOR ENFORCEMENT.

EVEN THOUGH THE PROTECTION WAS PERMANENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

So...What, in God's name is Ted Stevens talking about with 'unconstitutionally unenforceable'???


Mr. Stevens excerpted rationale concludes with:

'The most likely permanent solution would be a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.'

HUH????

Do I hear 'permanence'??

Didn't this man just finish telling us 'permanence' was a 'trap'?

The 13th didn't do it.

The 14th didn't do it.

The 15th didn't do it until the VRA.

And.. he wants to ask for permanence in a new amendment.

And... not for protection of the 'right to vote', BUT a GUARANTEE.

Hell! The 15th GUARANTEES PROTECTION. AND IT'S PERMANENT!!!

THIS MAN IS MY LAWYER???

VOX!!!!!

Do you know somebody.

ANYBODY WE CAN CALL???


I/We are supposed to BLINDLY accept this reasoning??

I wondering how this dude got out of school.

Is he a member of any 'bar?'

Puleeze!!!!!!!11

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:


Then how can you support vouchers which, by definition, can only help a small number of children - leaving most behind in sub-standard schools?


The same reason why YOU support Affirmative Action which only help a small number of people applying for College, leaving most behind without advanced education.


Affirmative action, as you know, applies to higher education and also to employment, government contracts etc. As you also know it is a program that, at the core, is desinged to counteract illegal and immoral white racism in those institutions. In hiring, for example, if white males did not discriminate and primarily hire just other white males then there would be no need for affirmative action.

I hope you can see the extraordinary difference between the breadth of affirmative action assisting people throughout education and employment as opposed to vouchers which narrowly pick off a few students in a school - essentially ignoring the rest. If you are really concerned with educating kids why on earth would you not support doing what is necessary to fix those schools that are underperforming as opposed to just cherry picking a few students out?

Beyond that, your argument that affirmative action is limited in scope is rather disingenuous. The program is specifically desinged to help people in higher education, for ex., yet you attack it because only a small percentage of people receive the benefit of the program? I guess you're against colleges and universities in general since only 26% of Americans graduate from college? Confused

So - because one limited program (introduced by Richard Nixon btw) does not solve all of America's racism, you think the program is flawed? That's like attacking the dentist because it doesn't fix your heart problem! sck

quote:
(Stop listening to so many talking points)


laugh

You harp on teachers' unions and you have the nerve to talk about "talking points"? nono


quote:
The thought of WAITING for our public schools to be fixed rather than given folks options to find other more competent sources for education if ridiculous.


How can you be satisfied with helping just a few kids at the expense of the vast majority? Sure it's probably great for the few children who get to take advantage of vouchers, but what about the rest of the children who will be left behind in even worse schools with even worse teachers and resources? You are excited about a few kids getting out but can ignore the 95%+ of the kids still there? Is that really a solution?


quote:
Finally the argument that the students left behind in the public schools will be the worst of the worst does not fly with me.

On the one hand we can ask that the parents of these bad kids left behind to take responsibility for their children.


If, according to your scenario, they are lesser performing students, wouldn't you think that their parents are already, on average, less involved then they should be? So - you propose just asking them to get more involved? Is that your solution? Your entire argument against gutting the public school system is that you are going to merely ask parents to get more involved? sck

quote:
On the other hand we can focus special attention on these children rather than having those who want to learn to be held behind as these others disrupt the class.


Your assumption that the students 'left behind' are disruptive is illuminating as to your biases. Why couldn't they be equally as committed to learning, but just either less capable or the product of less adequate prior schooling?

Beyond that, with already underfunded schools gutted of critical resources, how do you propose to focus "special attention" on anyone?

quote:
Any way you spin it THE CASE AGAINST VOUCHERS DOES NOT STAND FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STUDENTS AHEAD OF THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND TEACHERS UNIONS


Well, let's check out the impact of YOUR schooling. If you are concerned about educating our children, do you do something that makes a positive difference for 100% of the children or do you do something that helps less than 5% of the children and which guts the schools of resources and teachers for the remaining 95%? You do the math: 100% or 5% - which is greater?

You seem to be more interested in making political statements about the school system and teachers' unions than in helping kids. Why not just be honest about your motivations?!
Last edited {1}
And you call me biased???

I am of the view that the educational needs of the students come first.

There have been plenty of school systems that have been reporting the same ole story for more than 40 years. Each year they produce students that are not up to standard, unable to compete in a world in which an advanced degree is a minimum requirement to make a descent living.

One can do a review of the School Distict of Philadelphia as a case study on the claim that the lack of school funding is the ROOT of the problem. It may be A problem but not THE problem. All this argument does is to throw out a red herring and prevent inspection of the CORE issues that saddle the schools, producing a "product" that is not ready to compete in the real world.

I reject the claim that providing an option for some students who choose to depart the government school system leaves the local school in worse shape. If this is the case then wouldn't the construction of an additional public school to relieve over crowding do the same?

As we peel back the onion it is CLEAR that some folks what to protect the current model of educational distribution and thus THEIR POWER, regardless of the impact on the students who must WAIT until the system get's there act together.

I challenge you to do research on KIPP Academies.

http://www.kipp.org/

There are charter schools that are effectively educating low income students with LESS MONEY their the government school that is near by AND ARE RASING THE SCORES that these other schools have failed to do.

The old saying about "Sh t or get off of the pot" is clearly the case with those who are charged with educating our children.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

One can do a review of the School Distict of Philadelphia as a case study on the claim that the lack of school funding is the ROOT of the problem. It may be A problem but not THE problem. All this argument does is to throw out a red herring and prevent inspection of the CORE issues that saddle the schools, producing a "product" that is not ready to compete in the real world.


I have not anywhere made this claim. I merely said that schools were "underfunded".

quote:
I reject the claim that providing an option for some students who choose to depart the government school system leaves the local school in worse shape. If this is the case then wouldn't the construction of an additional public school to relieve over crowding do the same?


1) Schools that use old, tattered books and antiquated equipment etc., as well as pay their teachers ridiculously low salaries are "underfunded". How can taking resources out of these already "underfunded" schools do anything but hurt them?

2) Yes - if the construction of the school were done under the same tax base (i.e. without the addition of new tax money to fund the construction). So what?

quote:
As we peel back the onion it is CLEAR that some folks what to protect the current model of educational distribution and thus THEIR POWER, regardless of the impact on the students who must WAIT until the system get's there act together.


You talked about "talking points" yet all you do is regurgitate conservative ones. Debate with me, not with someone else's argument. When have I said anything about the above?

Beyond that, I've asked this numerous times - I'll try again. How does leaving behind 95%+ of all students in further depleted schools help them? You talk about being concerned with children, how does your position do anything but assist a few select kids? Please answer that.

quote:
I challenge you to do research on KIPP Academies.

http://www.kipp.org/

There are charter schools that are effectively educating low income students with LESS MONEY their the government school that is near by AND ARE RASING THE SCORES that these other schools have failed to do.


You seem to be missing my point entirely. I'm not arguing that smaller, private schools can be more effective than public schools. My point is that the entire objective of PUBLIC school is to educate the masses of children. Vouchers does not provide a solution to that. In fact, it undercuts that objective.
MBM,

Thanks for rebutting CF's limited vague rhetoric on Affirmative Action. AA is responsible for a large blakc middle class that did not exist previously.....according to the JBHE materials, the number of blacks enrolled in college DOUBLED between 1985-2000, and the decrease and increase in black college enrollment and professional inclusion ALWAYS coincides with the implementation or repeal of AA programs.

sunnubian said it best:
This voucher scam is just another way for the rich, and the racists in America to be able to afford to send their children to private schools at the expense of the REAL taxpayers, the working class; it serves two folds: have taxpayers pay for re-segregation efforts under the guise of school choice vouchers, and have even the lower middle class and working poor taxpayers fund educating America's riches and wealther children.

Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money ear marked for Vouchers where it is needed, in the public school systems, especially since the parents of the students in the public school systems are the primary taxpayers in this country?


CF, research deeply into the public school system in Houston and Texas and see how the condition has been turned around. Public Schools in Texas worked waaay back even in my day.......and black kids had no problems with college admissions...then and even now.....the problem is forcing kids to perform at higher standards and make acheivement a priority like allot of other BS is in their lives......and that statement does not apply to black kids as a whole, i do not generalize because i'm not bill cosby....but the bottom line is.......public schools should be fixed FIRST....where ALL students have access to the same kind of education......matter of fact......all kids should be forced to go to public/magnet schools....then they would get the attention and resources they deserve....
quote:
AA is responsible for a large blakc middle class that did not exist previously.....according to the JBHE materials, the number of blacks enrolled in college DOUBLED between 1985-2000, and the decrease and increase in black college enrollment and professional inclusion ALWAYS coincides with the implementation or repeal of AA programs.


My friend Kevin:

Let us pull out a road map of what the future holds.

The retirining Justice O'Conner with support from Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the most part gave AA another 25 years of life. (Of course neither of them will be around to make a judgement then).

So now there appears to me to be two roads for us to take as a people:

1) Drum up the protests marches to tell dem White folks how large of a middle class that has been created from Affirmative Action in the past, hoping that our traditional oppressors will agree to SHARE some of the slots that allow us to become empowered at the universities and jobs around the country.

Now keep in mind we have globalization taking place all the While and a large influx of Hispanics coming into this country. The White power base is getting it from the outside (China in particular) and now from the inside of this country with the "browning of America".

Do you really think that the recent losses in AA support are some day going to be restored? Really - you can be honest with me.


2) As noted yesterday I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE FAILURE OF OUR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS are the upstream problems that have our children challenged to enter into advanced education.

It seems to me that a LESS tenuous strategy would be one in which the bulk of the effort at BUILDING A SOLID BLACK MIDDLE CLASS is in the repair of our schools and with that the repair of our local economies SO THERE IS MONEY GENERATED TO SPEND IN OUR SCHOOLS rather than leading a protest march in Washington DC for money in our schools.

The problem with Black Communities is the low GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT that is achieved within and thus we are always seeking to play on an outside field and "make it level".

I would hate to see our condition if and when all of the forces that are outside of the United States who are begining to stand tall and eat away at the domination that had been achieved (regardless of the means it was achieved) gain success and the United States becomes a part of the crowd. In pursuing your Integrationalist policies you have a implicit expectation that the USA will be about to provide jobs that you can "affirm into". There were plenty of very well educated people in this country who could not find a job when the economy collapsed a few years ago. It would be interesting to evaluate the impact on the people living in more self sustained communities like "China town" in Oakland or San Francisco.

In my view strategically you have it wrong. Of course since I disagree with you I must be an insidious Republican or someone intending to indoctrinate you against that which you believe.

ALL THAT I ASK IN THE LONG RUN is that YOUR policies, that so often are cast as "the official Black policies" be put up for inspection to test their EFFECTIVENESS. If they are proven to be working and at the rate of change that is acceptable - FINE.

It seems to me, however, that the ESCAPE HATCH of redirecting the blame externally on WHITE RACISM allows certain policies to live longer than their shelf life dictates.

Please FACTOR EXTERNAL RACISM INTO YOUR MODEL and still justify your position.

I believe that some of you believe that White folks are going to HAND OVER THE KEYS one day if you just pass another law to control them from being "racist".
CF,

I really do not give a f-k about what white people think or do....so quit making them MY point of reference....that is for the black conservative....they are worried about what whites think and how will whites accept THEM and the way THEY think. A growing middle class equates to wealth accumulation and buying power. An educated and skilled black middle class will equate into political leverage induced by consumer leverage....that is my point of focus, nothing much else.....and you sound like a white not because you disagree with me.......but because you say imply that AA is supposed to have a certain life span.....well 40 years is not enough to offset poverty systematically created by jim crow........nor will the racist attitudes of many in this country ever change...so if you want to look the other way and say black people are rsponsible for this schit others placed us into....that is fine...but it is your thought and not mine...and the concept of me thinking white folks will do anything voluntarily is not possible...history has shown me how my rights and movements towards equality were attained....the future needs to include expansion of the black middle and upper class...and movement towards a national spending bloc/politcal leveraging structure....
quote:
and you sound like a white not because you disagree with me.......but because you say imply that AA is supposed to have a certain life span.....well 40 years is not enough to offset poverty systematically created by jim crow........nor will the racist attitudes of many in this country ever change...so if you want to look the other way and say black people are rsponsible for this schit others placed us into.


40 Years of AA is not enough IS YOUR OPINION and you have a right to believe that.
At the same time those same WHITE FOLKS that you say you are not beholden to, ATLEAST A PORTION OF THEM must agree with you for AA to be around.

I AM NOT WHITE. I am a REALIST and a STRATEGIC THINKER.

You are very correct that "racist attitudes" will not go away - until there is no more difference in races. It may shift to tribalism or some other group faction at that time.

I DID NOT SAY that Black people are "responsible" for the state that we are in.

I DO SAY THAT IT IS GOING TO FALL TO THE BLACK MANS RESPONSIBILITY TO TRANSFORM/TRANSITION OUT OF OUR CURRENT STATE. Certainly no Well-Meaning White Liberal looking for your vote is going to do it!!! Even Farrahkan said this.

So again as I triangulate on your position - you agree that racism is here to stay. You agree that an Educated Black Middle Class is critical. (we are 2 for 2 thus far) . It seems that you and I disagree on the third leg of the stool.

In my view the Middle Class that is sustainable will come from within. Though you attribute the success of the past (seemingly) exclusively to Affirmative Action you must also note the large manufacturing base and union jobs that were available at the time to provide even Blacks with no college education a solid middle class living. You and I both know that these jobs are permanently gone.

Now we are facing a situation where the landscape is changing in the WORLD and the United States. Where are these "moderate income jobs for Blacks" to rebuild a middle class going to come from?

You even have Black entertainment moguls who market clothing MAKING THEIR GOODS IN LOW WAGE COUNTRIES instead of employing the people from the streets where they came from.

ABSENT A COMPREHENSIVE set of CONSCIOUSNESS and policies to brng the jobs back to our community I predict your head on attack
on Jobs created by White folks will fail to produce the results that you seek.

Take a walk into the mall in Crenshaw that the Magic Theaters are located. Without having been there in about 5 years I predict that you have more NON-BLACK merchants in that mall than Black American selling to Blacks.

It seems to me that a focus on White folks (and I am not saying YOU DO) and NOT and EQUAL and EXCESS focus on BLACK FOLKS needing to change is never going to provide the end that we are seeking.

MY VIEW.
AA affected every aspect of society there is....so to target jobs that have been downsized or outsourced is truly not a priority but there are too many areas that black inclusion was enhanced to list. The growing black middle class as the well-paying blue collar and manufacturing job is what made the racist right say AA has outlived its usefulness.....what would make a black who most likely benefitted from AA say it has also. And I do not speak of AA as an exclusive anything....that is how racist whites talk when they act like a black does not have to be qualified, apply for a job and do not work, or do not study in school and be given a degree because of AA. I jus know that the one mechanism that has fostered unprecedented levels of educational attainment and professional inclusion for blacks...is being attacked by racist whites and their black helpers without anything that works as good as an alternative......and to me, since none of you would just quit your jobs without getting a new one...what makes you all want to do the same with AA. AA is just an OPPORTUNITY to perform....not some gift or handout like that troubled azz negro comes in here ranting about.


There were never jobs in the black community outside of the service sector and magic's thing is a joke...that is just consumerism fostered under the guise of economic development....some more shit for people to f-k their money off on instead of investing it in themselves on education and things that will better their future.

But the biggest boon to job creation is black consumerism....and if we spend our money on education, empower ourselves and keep the rest in our pockets instead of strutting around like peacocks trying to outbling each other......and selectively cause industries to fail...we wouldn't need AA because it would be implemented on our behalf by those wanting to be employed their damn selves....but I say do that in additon to having firm AA policy......it has created a betterlife for millions of blacks....which is something i'll never argue against.....because it still does not level the playing field to the extent it should...or offer redress for what was done to many black people......many still alive......


but my question is....what is the primary indicator that AA is no longer needed...are there too many blacks with new cars or something? I wonder what actually make racists (i know what made their black following do so...loyalty) wake up one morning and say that enough has been gained by black people? What gave them such a sign?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×