Comments: NEA also confused about SCOTUS decision regarding race & schooling

(We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)


Close your bold tag in the first quote.

Posted by Mat Marshall at July 28, 2007 03:12 PM

Huh? All looks fine on my end.

Posted by Hube at July 28, 2007 03:55 PM

"More than 50 years ago our nation's highest court ruled that the United States Constitution b>"

I assume that you had meant to put requires schools to be integrated, but you missed the first carrot, so there IS no bold.

Posted by Mat Marshall at July 28, 2007 09:14 PM

Never saw that little bit. Thanks, Mat!

Posted by Hube at July 29, 2007 09:17 PM

Of course.

Now that my little pet peeve has been satisfied, I can move on to the content of the actual post.

Frankly, I've really been on the fence about all of this stuff regarding race and education.

One the one hand, I am an egalitarian (or try to be, at least), and the whole idea of HBCUs, affirmative action, etc., seems a bit contradictory to that, so my initial instinct would be to oppose that.

One the other hand, blacks aren't in the same economic situation as whites, by and large. Not necessarily because of laziness (though I'm sure that every demographic offers somebody who fits the description), but because whites, specifically Northern whites, have had a head-start. I say Northern whites because if you compare former Confederate states with the rest of the country, you'll see that ever since Confederate money lost its value, the South has been way behind in the economy, due to lack of inheritance, etc. Hell, being that my father's side of the family came to Virginia in the early 18th century, I'd be way better off if the Civil War hadn't actually happened... but that's aside from the point. The point is that the same principle applies to the black community at large, so I have another instinct telling me that affirmative action et al is only right.

This whole thing offered food for thought, to say the least.

Posted by Mat Marshall at July 30, 2007 06:35 AM

Well, Matt, let me sort this out for you.

Some African Americans are historically disadvantaged. Some are not (for example the children of black entertainers and athletes, or recent Haitian or African immigrants). However, affirmitive action argues that, solely because of skin color, one group of people should be advantaged over another. To me this is the very soul and essence of discrimination.

People don't fall into nice neat categories based on skin color. Which is why I oppose any segregation of people based on nice neat categories.

How about this thought - Isan't religious diversity just as important (or even more important) than simple color of the skin? Religion is a huge determinign part of "culture". If cultural diversity is so all fired important, I would argue that one's religion is a more telling factor regarding culture than skin color.

Now imagine a college deciding that only so many Protestants, so many Hindus, so many Jews, and so many Catholics be allowed to attend, in the interest of diversity. You think that might fly?

Posted by Big D at August 6, 2007 06:49 PM

You are confused when you write: "But what can one expect from those who once championed color-blindness but now color-consciousness ... once championed individual rights but now group rights ... and once championed dismantling barriers to desegregation but now favor race mandates based on some pseudo-scientific notion of "diversity"?"

Those who champion "diversity" are the intellectual heirs of those who championed segregation. More Republicans voted to pass the Civil Rights legislation in the 60's than Democrats. One could hardly design a better plan to keep minorities segregated and subjegated than the accumulated policies of Democrats on race.

Posted by Ben at August 7, 2007 03:44 PM