ThE "N" Word!

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Chancellor Worse, affirmative action is inherently racist against those it was intended to help. It has the effect of "Well, you're not capable of competing on an equal level with whites so we'll just go ahead and make things easier for you with lower test scores, lower qualifications, and preferential treatment." This is the 21st century: it's time to knock off all this majority/minority nonsense and just be Americans.

No, the idea of affirmative action is that it examines potential instead of past achievement. If you have two runners trying out for a team and they have equal times, but one has terrible form and the other has good form, who do you take? Answer: the one with terrible form, because if you coach him to improve his form, his time will improve, while the other one has maxed out already, or at least can't improve as much. The same holds if the one with poor form is only slightly behind the one with good form; the potential of the runner with less training is greater, and so he is the better choice, despite the difference in past performance.

Affirmative action was intended to make up for a systemic lack of advantages, primarily the lack of educational funding and a poorer learning environment, that tends to afflict minorities more than whites. If an inner city student has SAT scores, say, 100 points below those of a suburban kid, the inner city kid might be the better choice.

The problem with affirmative action is it, like the Three Strikes law and others that make intelligent decisions unnecessary, should never be mandated. A reasonably intelligent admissions officer should be able to take such things as poor educational environment into account without having the federal government force him to do it. One could also see affirmative action as racist in that it assumes that minority students are the ones who have less educational support -- except the fact is, the vast majority of poor learning environments are predominantly non-white.

So: is affirmative action unnecessary? Yes. Racist? Not in intent.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fonceai @CoffeeSaint I'm an exception because I actually know more about the word that just the word and it's basic origins? I agree that any word is not offensive if used in the correct context. I just think that seeing ignorance or otherwise derogatory behavior has many words that can describe the person demonstrating it. Using one of those words as a sign of respect is ignorant in and of itself. Like that trend of saying something is "stupid" if you think it's good.

You're an exception because you learned the word is made offensive by its connotations and intended meanings, not just dogmatically as in "That's a bad word!" "Why?" "Because it's bad! Never say it!"

[Osborn F Enready]

Coffee Saint said: No, the idea of affirmative action is that it examines potential instead of past achievement. If you have two runners trying out for a team and they have equal times, but one has terrible form and the other has good form, who do you take? Answer: the one with terrible form, because if you coach him to improve his form, his time will improve, while the other one has maxed out already, or at least can't improve as much. The same holds if the one with poor form is only slightly behind the one with good form; the potential of the runner with less training is greater, and so he is the better choice, despite the difference in past performance. Affirmative action was intended to make up for a systemic lack of advantages, primarily the lack of educational funding and a poorer learning environment, that tends to afflict minorities more than whites. If an inner city student has SAT scores, say, 100 points below those of a suburban kid, the inner city kid might be the better choice. The problem with affirmative action is it, like the Three Strikes law and others that make intelligent decisions unnecessary, should never be mandated. A reasonably intelligent admissions officer should be able to take such things as poor educational environment into account without having the federal government force him to do it. One could also see affirmative action as racist in that it assumes that minority students are the ones who have less educational support -- except the fact is, the vast majority of poor learning environments are predominantly non-white. So: is affirmative action unnecessary? Yes. Racist? Not in intent.

I say:
That was a great post, and well said. I agree with the noble IDEA, and I think it may have originated in noble INTENTION, but I think it has shown to be ineffective, and working against the intended goals.

That is why I feel the way I do, about affirmative action, and the "n" word.

[Cephus]

Quote by: ByaKya If you still dont understand after re-reading my post, then i urge you to test out your theory in downtown los angeles, you are already in CA, road trip! before you say the n word to a black person, let them them know its for their own good and you dont agree that its bad for you to say it ok?

See, I don't use the word any more than I just randomly call people assholes, simply because it's rude. But by the same token, having them use the word or other racist words is no more acceptable, just because they're black. That was kind of the point.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ByaKya Lots of ignorance the last couple posts, especially from the guy that is politically astute enough to specifically call himself a libertarian. The difference in both and funding to education by way of public schools ALONE is so vast between whites and blacks in this country that you will need to willfully ignore it to not notice it. Now take this huge difference and apply it to income, housing, public funding, parks, business, medical, legal and you start to get an idea o just how far behind an average black person is compared to an average white person. My class had one computer per student when our class went to the library, a couple years ago a freinds younger neice told me she had wait in line when I told her o just use the computer at school to check her email. She was black, that's the norm for public school in black cities. And my experience was the norm for public school in mostly white cities for the most part. I even seen a special on oprah about this, surely libertarian watch oprah. And for you to sit there and say "NO" to a black person who put up with this for 18 years, is ridiculous. When the situtation I laid out is no more, then like I said, I'd agree to remove affirmative action

The problem isn't that these people are black it's that a disproportionate number of them, forever stuck in a state of victimhood by paternalistic liberals, live in poorer school districts. Well, guess what? There are white folks, hispanics, and Asians who also live in some of those school districts and they don't get any more money for their education than the blacks. So, don't give me this "more money is spent in white schools" crap. Why is it that Catholic schools seem to be able to do so much better than your government indoctrination centers (public schools) on a whole lot less money?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Chancellor Why is it that Catholic schools seem to be able to do so much better than your government indoctrination centers (public schools) on a whole lot less money?

Catholic schools do better because they have smaller class sizes, fewer bureaucratic restrictions and obligations, and (most important) the support of interested, involved parents who believe in education. Give public schools these things, and the results would be similar.

And though it wasn't directed at me, more money is spent in "white" schools. The term is generally used to describe the majority population, not every single student at the school. My high school had 1600 students: 7 of them were Hispanic, and perhaps 20 were black (all but one of the black students were bussed in from inner-city Boston). Would you call that a "mixed-race" school? Or is "white" a reasonable descriptor? And my school was quite well financed.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Catholic schools do better because they have smaller class sizes, fewer bureaucratic restrictions and obligations, and (most important) the support of interested, involved parents who believe in education. Give public schools these things, and the results would be similar. And though it wasn't directed at me, more money is spent in "white" schools. The term is generally used to describe the majority population, not every single student at the school. My high school had 1600 students: 7 of them were Hispanic, and perhaps 20 were black (all but one of the black students were bussed in from inner-city Boston). Would you call that a "mixed-race" school? Or is "white" a reasonable descriptor? And my school was quite well financed.

you beat me to it.
Amazing that in this day in age, with information readily available, people STILL are ignorant, STILL in the dark about the reality of our country and the planet as a whole.
If a person doesnt even know about the inequalities present in our country when it comes to race, how the HELL are they going to know about the inequalties present on our planet, most of which is manufactured inequality and injustice.

Sometimes i think if conservatives were simply given all the facts, they too would become liberals. But when there facts have been "Rush" and "Hannity" approved it all becomes cloudy for them.

Just like the posters claim that white schools got more funding is "BS", simply amazing.

[Cephus]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Catholic schools do better because they have smaller class sizes, fewer bureaucratic restrictions and obligations, and (most important) the support of interested, involved parents who believe in education. Give public schools these things, and the results would be similar.

Private schools perform better because they have control over what they allow and who they accept. If they had to follow the same rules as public schools, they'd be no better than public schools. In a private school, if you have a disruptive student, you can expel them. Public schools do not have that option. In fact, the students have to do something criminal and be prosecuted in order to have them removed from the school, something that private schools simply do not have to face.

It's really ludicrous to compare public and private schools because they are two completely different animals. Until they have to follow the same rules, there simply is no comparison.

[tinybear]

YouTube - Chris Tucker gets Suckered

Good dialogue, huh?

YouTube - Jackie Brown chris tucker killed

[brien]

Quote by: ByaKya you dont know it already, because it cant be explained, its non sense. They are saying giving minorities that have been historically mistreated a very small chance of making it into one of the better colleges is as good as hundreds years of slavery is bad. another way to see this horrible phrase used is to equate a few white people going to their 2nd choice college as the same racism that enslaved hundreds of thousands of people.

Let's consider how some respected Black intellectuals think about Affirmative Action:

The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks by Thomas Sowell (April 1, 2003) No issue has been more saturated with dishonesty than the issue of racial quotas and preferences, which is now being examined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Many defenders of affirmative action are not even honest enough to admit that they are talking about quotas and preferences, even though everyone knows that that is what affirmative action amounts to in practice. Despite all the gushing about the mystical benefits of "diversity" in higher education, a recent study by respected academic scholars found that "college diversity programs fail to raise standards" and that "a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously." This study by Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Neil Nevitte found that "of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1." Poll after poll over the years has shown that most faculty members and most students are opposed to double standards in college admissions. Yet professors who will come out publicly and say what they say privately in these polls are as rare as hen's teeth. Such two-faced talk is pervasive in academia and elsewhere. A few years ago, in Berkeley, there was a big fight over whether a faculty vote on affirmative action would be by secret ballot or open vote. Both sides knew that the result of a secret ballot would be the direct opposite of the result in a public vote at a faculty meeting. When any policy can only be defended by lies and duplicity, there is something fundamentally wrong with that policy. Virtually every argument in favor of affirmative action is demonstrably false. It is the grand fraud of our time. The need for "role models" of the same race or sex is a key dogma behind affirmative action in hiring black or female professors. But a recent study titled "Increasing Faculty Diversity" found "no empirical evidence to support the belief that same-sex, same-ethnicity role models are any more effective than white male role models." The related notion that a certain "critical mass" of black students is needed on a given campus, in order that these students can feel comfortable enough to do their best, has become dogma without a speck of evidence being offered or asked for. Such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction. Without affirmative action, its advocates claim, few black students would be able to get into college. In reality, there are today more black students in the University of California system and in the University of Texas system than there were before these systems ended affirmative action. These black students are simply distributed differently within both systems -- no longer being mismatched with institutions whose standards they don't meet. They now have a better chance of graduating. What of the idea that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty and is needed to continue that rise? A far higher proportion of blacks in poverty rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940 and 1960 -- that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation -- than in the more than 40 years since then. This trend continued in the 1960s, at a slower pace. The decade of the 1970s -- the first affirmative action decade -- saw virtually no change in the poverty rate among blacks. In other words, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty but liberal politicians and black "leaders" have claimed credit. One side effect is that many whites wonder why blacks cannot lift themselves out of poverty like other groups, when that is in fact what most blacks have done. Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done little or nothing for most people in the ghetto. Most minority business owners who get preferences in government contracts have net worths of more than one million dollars. One of the big barriers to any rational discussion of affirmative action is that many of those who are for or against it are for or against the theory or the rationales behind group preferences and quotas. As for facts, the defenders simply lie.

Interesting, indeed.

[brien]

Quote by: ByaKya So very true. minorities will have to wait another millenia before you and other libertarians come around to rectifiying this historical problem that effects a laregly minoriry group of people. meanwhile, id like a few black people to get in over a few white people to a specific college of their choice. when a time comes where minorities represent a proportionate about of business leaders, etc i will join you in a call to end this needed practice.

Just so you can get a better perspective from us libertarians, I will once again refer you to a respected balck economist and intellectual to refute your myopic views upon quotas:

The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks by Thomas Sowell (April 1, 2003) No issue has been more saturated with dishonesty than the issue of racial quotas and preferences, which is now being examined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Many defenders of affirmative action are not even honest enough to admit that they are talking about quotas and preferences, even though everyone knows that that is what affirmative action amounts to in practice. Despite all the gushing about the mystical benefits of "diversity" in higher education, a recent study by respected academic scholars found that "college diversity programs fail to raise standards" and that "a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously." This study by Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Neil Nevitte found that "of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1." Poll after poll over the years has shown that most faculty members and most students are opposed to double standards in college admissions. Yet professors who will come out publicly and say what they say privately in these polls are as rare as hen's teeth. Such two-faced talk is pervasive in academia and elsewhere. A few years ago, in Berkeley, there was a big fight over whether a faculty vote on affirmative action would be by secret ballot or open vote. Both sides knew that the result of a secret ballot would be the direct opposite of the result in a public vote at a faculty meeting. When any policy can only be defended by lies and duplicity, there is something fundamentally wrong with that policy. Virtually every argument in favor of affirmative action is demonstrably false. It is the grand fraud of our time. The need for "role models" of the same race or sex is a key dogma behind affirmative action in hiring black or female professors. But a recent study titled "Increasing Faculty Diversity" found "no empirical evidence to support the belief that same-sex, same-ethnicity role models are any more effective than white male role models." The related notion that a certain "critical mass" of black students is needed on a given campus, in order that these students can feel comfortable enough to do their best, has become dogma without a speck of evidence being offered or asked for. Such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction. Without affirmative action, its advocates claim, few black students would be able to get into college. In reality, there are today more black students in the University of California system and in the University of Texas system than there were before these systems ended affirmative action. These black students are simply distributed differently within both systems -- no longer being mismatched with institutions whose standards they don't meet. They now have a better chance of graduating. What of the idea that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty and is needed to continue that rise? A far higher proportion of blacks in poverty rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940 and 1960 -- that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation -- than in the more than 40 years since then. This trend continued in the 1960s, at a slower pace. The decade of the 1970s -- the first affirmative action decade -- saw virtually no change in the poverty rate among blacks. In other words, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty but liberal politicians and black "leaders" have claimed credit. One side effect is that many whites wonder why blacks cannot lift themselves out of poverty like other groups, when that is in fact what most blacks have done. Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done little or nothing for most people in the ghetto. Most minority business owners who get preferences in government contracts have net worths of more than one million dollars. One of the big barriers to any rational discussion of affirmative action is that many of those who are for or against it are for or against the theory or the rationales behind group preferences and quotas. As for facts, the defenders simply lie.

[Fonceai]

Hell, I'm a black intellectual, I'm not a millionaire, and I think it was a great idea for balancing a world that wanted to be unbalanced.

I've used aff. action. All things considered, I know I had a better GPA than the last student admitted to college... and I had a better GPA than the kid who got bumped off the bottom rung. All aff. action did was get me an earlier acceptance.

Same with financial aid... aff. action didn't make me any more needy... it just got me bumped to the top of the pile for consideration.

In that sense, aff. action is good and bad.

@brien

Dude, you didn't need to post the exact same full article twice.

[brien]

Quote by: ByaKya Lots of ignorance the last couple posts, especially from the guy that is politically astute enough to specifically call himself a libertarian. The difference in both and funding to education by way of public schools ALONE is so vast between whites and blacks in this country that you will need to willfully ignore it to not notice it. Now take this huge difference and apply it to income, housing, public funding, parks, business, medical, legal and you start to get an idea o just how far behind an average black person is compared to an average white person. My class had one computer per student when our class went to the library, a couple years ago a freinds younger neice told me she had wait in line when I told her o just use the computer at school to check her email. She was black, that's the norm for public school in black cities. And my experience was the norm for public school in mostly white cities for the most part. I even seen a special on oprah about this, surely libertarian watch oprah. And for you to sit there and say "NO" to a black person who put up with this for 18 years, is ridiculous. When the situtation I laid out is no more, then like I said, I'd agree to remove affirmative action

Ok Let's address ignorance. Let me ask you this, sir: Who was it that did more harm to the black family in the last 100 years than any other group with a program called Social Welfare aka The War on Poverty and the Great Society? And class, who was that: ding ding ding ding: LBJ. Let us examine some facts rather than regurgitating the pablum one hears bantered about by people who are filled with the designer infromation of the day.
LBJ and the Congress of the 1960's single handedly ruined the black family with Welfare. Before 1964 70% of Black families were intact with a father and a mother. Today that figure is less than 30%. The Great Society condemned the Black family to live in high rises in concetrated areas trapped in the inner cities. The direct result is the funding you so eloguently whine about in your posts. So the blame can be traced right back to your 1960's misguided liberals.

Here is more proof from a Black intellectual.

War on Poverty Revisited by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine

War on Poverty Revisited by Thomas Sowell (August 17, 2004) August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the major turning points in American social history. That was the date on which President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on Poverty" program in 1964. Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what road is paved with good intentions. The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation. In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing. Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed. The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed. The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life. Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots. Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs. For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly." That is completely false and misleading. The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate during the 1960s. The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty. In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards. While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s. But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal assumptions -- "two Americas," for example -- are being recycled this election year, even by candidates who evade the "liberal" label

So when you look to blame Hannity, Limbaugh, and other propagandists for the current plight of the Black family in America, I would reccomend you first seek the roots causes of these problems and assign your blame where it belongs: in the Liberal Congress and Executive branches of the government in the 1960's.

[brien]

Quote by: ByaKya Lots of ignorance the last couple posts, especially from the guy that is politically astute enough to specifically call himself a libertarian. The difference in both and funding to education by way of public schools ALONE is so vast between whites and blacks in this country that you will need to willfully ignore it to not notice it. Now take this huge difference and apply it to income, housing, public funding, parks, business, medical, legal and you start to get an idea o just how far behind an average black person is compared to an average white person. My class had one computer per student when our class went to the library, a couple years ago a freinds younger neice told me she had wait in line when I told her o just use the computer at school to check her email. She was black, that's the norm for public school in black cities. And my experience was the norm for public school in mostly white cities for the most part. I even seen a special on oprah about this, surely libertarian watch oprah. And for you to sit there and say "NO" to a black person who put up with this for 18 years, is ridiculous. When the situtation I laid out is no more, then like I said, I'd agree to remove affirmative action

Sorry for the double post

[Chancellor]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint No, the idea of affirmative action is that it examines potential instead of past achievement. If you have two runners trying out for a team and they have equal times, but one has terrible form and the other has good form, who do you take? Answer: the one with terrible form, because if you coach him to improve his form, his time will improve, while the other one has maxed out already, or at least can't improve as much. The same holds if the one with poor form is only slightly behind the one with good form; the potential of the runner with less training is greater, and so he is the better choice, despite the difference in past performance.

I would take the one with good form: it's a false assumption that because he has good form he cannot improve his time.

Affirmative action was intended to make up for a systemic lack of advantages, primarily the lack of educational funding and a poorer learning environment, that tends to afflict minorities more than whites. If an inner city student has SAT scores, say, 100 points below those of a suburban kid, the inner city kid might be the better choice.

It doesn't matter what was "intended," the fact of the matter is that it communicates a wrong message to blacks: that you are inherently inferior and, therefore, need special help. It is also a false assumption that the person with the lower SAT scores is necessarily going to be the better choice. By the way, I was one of those kids who grew up in one of those poorer learning environments and I still managed to graduate in the top 10 percent of my high school class without really having to put much effort into it. Maybe some of these kids would have to work harder at it but they're just as capable of success. That you're raising the issue of poorer learning environment has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity, it has to do with economic status and you cannot prove that merely being poor is going to so negatively impact a student's potential that he needs special help in the form of lower test scores or otherwise lower qualifications to succeed. You most certainly can't prove that so-called "minorities" are so negatively impacted by being a minority (meaning their inherent characteristics, not how the majority population has treated them) that they need special help in the form of lower test scores or otherwise lower qualifications to succeed.

The problem with affirmative action is it, like the Three Strikes law and others that make intelligent decisions unnecessary, should never be mandated. A reasonably intelligent admissions officer should be able to take such things as poor educational environment into account without having the federal government force him to do it. One could also see affirmative action as racist in that it assumes that minority students are the ones who have less educational support -- except the fact is, the vast majority of poor learning environments are predominantly non-white.

So-called "poor education environment" is an economic issue, not a racial one. But why should an admissions officer have to take that into account? If you have the grades, if you have the test scores, that should be sufficient. So what if a poorer school district didn't have the computers or the brand new textbooks that the wealthier school district might have. Students were able to learn quite adequately before there even were such things.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Hell, I'm a black intellectual, I'm not a millionaire, and I think it was a great idea for balancing a world that wanted to be unbalanced. I've used aff. action. All things considered, I know I had a better GPA than the last student admitted to college... and I had a better GPA than the kid who got bumped off the bottom rung. All aff. action did was get me an earlier acceptance. Same with financial aid... aff. action didn't make me any more needy... it just got me bumped to the top of the pile for consideration. In that sense, aff. action is good and bad. @brien Dude, you didn't need to post the exact same full article twice.

Fonce. I fixed it.

What does a millionaire have to do with anything????

I firmly believe in Thomas Sowell's point of view. I have seen students admitted to colleges such as Darmouth or Yale and not be able to cut the mustard because they aren't properly prepared or qualified. They drop out after the first semester, usually demoarlized, only not to perhaps re-enter college. They are better off matriculating in a school that best suits their preparation rather than going in over their head. This way they can maintain higher academic standards and qualify for perhaps a better graduate school. Or after two years, with higher standards from their work at a different school, then they can transfer to Dartmouth or Yale where they will be better prepared to do well. To simply fill quota seats with bodies that have no regard to qualifications is a stupid idea and panders to that which doesn't make sense in the real world.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Catholic schools do better because they have smaller class sizes, fewer bureaucratic restrictions and obligations, and (most important) the support of interested, involved parents who believe in education. Give public schools these things, and the results would be similar.

So, why do these government indoctrination centers (public schools) have all these "bureaucratic restrictions and obligations"? Is it not at least in part because of the Democrats and Republicans the sheeple keep voting into office? Is it not at least in part because of leftist labor unions? As for parents getting involved in their children's education, what is it about public schools that make parents less inclined to get involved?

And though it wasn't directed at me, more money is spent in "white" schools. The term is generally used to describe the majority population, not every single student at the school. My high school had 1600 students: 7 of them were Hispanic, and perhaps 20 were black (all but one of the black students were bussed in from inner-city Boston). Would you call that a "mixed-race" school? Or is "white" a reasonable descriptor? And my school was quite well financed.

So, it really has to do with economic status and not race. It has to do with wealthier school districts vs. poorer school districts. Well, isn't that simply because schools are primarily funded locally through property taxes? Yet, the leftists keep wanting us to believe it's a race issue.

[Fonceai]

@brien

Agreed.

In my case it didn't really help much more than getting me in earlier than I would have been.

In the cases you listed, it actually did more harm, both for the accepted and unmentioned rejected, than it did any good.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Cephus Private schools perform better because they have control over what they allow and who they accept. If they had to follow the same rules as public schools, they'd be no better than public schools. In a private school, if you have a disruptive student, you can expel them. Public schools do not have that option. In fact, the students have to do something criminal and be prosecuted in order to have them removed from the school, something that private schools simply do not have to face.

So, the problem is with how these government indoctrination centers (public schools) CHOOSE to do things.

It's really ludicrous to compare public and private schools because they are two completely different animals. Until they have to follow the same rules, there simply is no comparison.

So, why can't the government indoctrination centers do things the way the private schools do them?