It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'White flight' illegal in texas judge rules

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
lashawnbarber.com...

According to the 1970 civil rights law, no student can be excluded from an equal opportunity for an education based on race,sex,ethnicity.
Apparently they didnt include the disclaimer 'unless your white'. These white students are being forced to attend schools to maintain its 'diversity'.
Reverse rascism does not equal no racism.




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
.
The post doesn't specify exactly how these parent are transfering their kids from one school to another.
I most places i believe it is a matter of where you home is located, as to where your children will be enrolled.
The method of transfer would be very significant to the story.

The objections raised do have merits in logic,
You can't argue both sides of race without losing the rational thread of logic.
Sometimes in the rush to avoid being called racist we quit being truly analytical and have pre-judged and rejected some ideas.

But since we all fall into some racial category or other it is almost impossible not to have some bias.

You need someone with purely with a buring passion to understand the interactions of race, culture and economics, who looks at people like insects.

But EVERYONE would have a tizzy fit about someone looking at people like insects.
Except perhaps the truly intellectual.
.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Apparently few people want to even touvh this thread, actually im surprised some mod hasnt trashed it yet.

Anyway, here is an exerpt of the article:

"If folks are complaining about white students leaving a school district, the implication is that the presence of whites is beneficial to blacks, yet the same people will argue that blacks and whites are equally capable of performing well and, to extend the implication, blacks admitted or hired through skin color preferences are just as qualified as the whites who didn’t get admitted or hired so that someone black could be admitted or hired instead"



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Excuse me? Are you saying that we are too PC here and aren't capable of critical thought?

Tread lightly, my friend.....


This is nothing new, really. Been going on for years. If you don't like where the government says you have to send your kids, you can always pay more money and send them to a private school. You don't get a tax break even though you prefer not to use substandard government issue crap, though.
Life in a socialist country; what can you do?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
This is obsurd. That's why no one is touching it.

What the parents were doing is illegal. They were moving their kids from one county district to another without moving their residence. In most states, this is illegal. And you need a false address (relative) to achieve it.

I went to school in a prodominately hispanic driven city. 80% of my school were hispanics, I'd say 50% of them didnt even know english. Was I happy? Not as a freshman.. but sure, I took 4 years of spanish and now mingle with the best. Was my education any less then a "white school".. not at all.

This article reeks of racism. Crying racism while advocating seperation





[edit on 8/17/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
As usual, if whites are wanting the best for their children, it must be out of racism. Never mind the school is rated higher. They are racists, right, Soul.

Now, there's a slathering of absurdity.

You mention seperation (sic) and claim you did not suffer from your education. Oh, the irony!

Seriously, you would know...how?

It is better that one does not have to take an additional language in order to get along in school. One should be taking additional languages because it is a good idea, not so one may "mix it up".

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I dont understand why people are complaining about racist parents moving thier kids.

They will be better off with out them.

Just another example of people needing to mind thier own business.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Again, anaother person who, with no facts or evidence, assume they are motivated by "racism".

Let's not allow ignorance to stand in the way! Where we have ignorance, we can simply make up some facts, right?




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
seems to me it's only racist when whitey says it. I get so fed up with it all.




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Thank you TC, that is exactly my point, wanting better for your kids is not 'rascism'. Forcing kids to stay in one district to keep their schools 'diverse' is rascism. It's not a big secret that in heavily mixed schools white kids are usually singled out and given a hard time by the majority whomever that may be, this is what is generating this 'white flight'
that and a want to better themselves which is supposed to be what america is about.

BTW it's not illegal to go to another school district if you pay the tuition, which this judge has prevented by his ignorant ruling.

Equality is supposed to be equality, not equality for the black people whose ancestors were treated unjustly by NO LIVING WHITE PERSON so reverse rascism is ok. Thats crap, thats not what i thought all the black civil leaders were preaching.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
it's funny to me that people use the no "black people whose ancestors were treated unjustly by NO LIVING WHITE PERSON " line. everyone knows quality of life is largely, though not soley, influenced by economic position at birth. white people were then and are now still given a large advantage due to the injustices encountered during our country's history, ending LEGALLY within the last coupla' generations. the only way to set everything "right" would have been a complete redistribution of wealth. then everyone would be able to say everybody has the same opportunity. and I'm pretty sure that they're not forcing white kids to stay in school just because they're white and they're hoping some whitenss rubs off on the other kids. they're doing it because as long as there are some white kids in the school, the well to do white families that were established during the period of legal oppression won't/can't completely abandon it.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
XphilesPhan, you don't have to worry about a thread being trashed because it's not PC. Just ask RANT, I've started plenty


I find this really interesting, though. If the roles were reversed, and this child's parents were black and they were leaving a predominantly white school to go to a higher ranking school with a predominantly black population, it would be their right. They could even use race as a resoning, and that would be acceptable.

Yet if your skintone isn't dark enough, you're not allowed to want better for your children, you're just a racist. No questions asked, no explanations given, they're just racists. It doesn't matter what their intentions are, they're racist. The only reason the parents would want their children out of a lower ranking school is because it is predominantly black.

Jessy Jackson comes to Chicago and demands segregation. He freaks out when he hears that Mayor Dailey has a plan to close the projects down and integrate the people living there into public housing in the suburbs. Jackson was on his case immediately for proposing such a racist notion. Blacks want to be with blacks, and Dailey was being a racist for wanting to move people in extreme low income housing where crime rates skyrocket (note: it was Jackson's racist assumption that everyone living in those condition is black, though they're not) to middle class neighborhoods where a high crime day is when a couple of kids are caught stealing a Twinkee from the corner store.

As long as we continue to use the term "racist" in the same way "Communist" was used in the McCarthyism days, we will be divided as a nation, and we will never be able to solve our problems. If I start a sociological study analyzing why, predominantly, the majority of people living in those projects I mentioned in the last paragraph were African-Americans, it would be the end of me. I would be protested, called racist, and have people doing everything in their power to make sure I don't find out the answer to the question. How does that further or help a society?

EDIT: I think another big question is, why are the black parents not trying to get their kids into the better school?

[edit on 8-17-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by passengername
. . everyone knows quality of life is largely, though not soley, influenced by economic position at birth. . . .


I'm calling you out on this bit of ill-starred cogitation.

I was born in extremely tight circumstances. In my parent's home, we ate what we grew in the garden, what we could shoot, and what we could barter with the neighbors for.

I went to work at 14, doing farm labor (illegally, of course). I didn't buy a car with the money, or record albums. I bought groceries for my brothers and parents, both of whom worked two jobs.

MY personal wealth is probably 4 times what my father's was at my age. How did that happen?

Since "everyone knows" i couldn't have done it myself.

I went to a terrible school, by the way. I'm self educated, with my parents' help. which is why my kids go to a private school.

The funny thing is, the private school the youngest ones go to is predominately hispanic. Are THEY racist, or just me, the Anglo?

Or maybe my wife is NOT a racist, since she's not the Anglo sending her kids to private school, but I AM, since I'm white???

By the way, she makes twice what her who family makes, as members of the entrepenuerial class in her homeland.

So much for birth making the determination.

Do you even work for a living? In my experience, statements like yours come from college students who are "trust fund babies." In other words, they hope their chances in life are influenced by their daddies' money!



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As usual, if whites are wanting the best for their children, it must be out of racism. Never mind the school is rated higher. They are racists, right, Soul.

Now, there's a slathering of absurdity.

You mention seperation (sic) and claim you did not suffer from your education. Oh, the irony!

Seriously, you would know...how?

It is better that one does not have to take an additional language in order to get along in school. One should be taking additional languages because it is a good idea, not so one may "mix it up".


How did I suffer from my education in my predominatly hispanic school? The teachers spoke perfect english, I took honor classes and went off to college without a hitch. If anyone in that school was having a poor education it was the hispanics that could not speak (or very little) english.

The reason I took 4 years of spanish is because it was a required course. Spanish, French, or German. Considering at the time, I assume as a kid I'd be living in that town forever, I chose spanish for obvious reasons.

Were there better schools in my area? You bet, but an education is what the student makes of it.. not to mention the school that rivaled ours spent an entire month going over the tests (that ranked them) with their students instead of regular scheduled courses. Ranks don't mean squat if you prep your alumni for them by handing them last year's test to study.

Alot of my childhood friends moved out of the county to attend more "normal" schools with mainly all white students. Many of them went to college and failed miserably. Now comparing my few friends to an entire district does no justice, but a "better" school doesnt necassarily mean "better" education.

I'm still holding my breathe for the day we, as people, are discriminatory not on terms of skin color, but on a persons attitude, behaviour, and general composure.

And to even claim that all these parents moved their kids because one school is better then the other is nonsense.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
By the way, the judge didn't rule that parents could no longer transfer their kids from one district to the other.

He ruled that the state won't pay for it anymore.


The judge's ruling permanently bars the Texas Education Agency from funding transfers to Mumford that "reduce or impeded racial desegregation at Hearne Independent School District." Districts receive about $5,500 funding from the agency for each student.

Mumford also was ordered to no longer host Hearne students currently attending its schools.

In addition, Justice ordered the TEA to assign a monitor to Mumford to ensure compliance with the ruling from now until the end of the 2007-08 school year.


Read this too:


As a result, he wrote, Hearne now is perceived as a black school district, creating negative and unsubstantiated stereotypes concerning the safety of students.

"All the Hearne educators clearly explained that this makes it harder for Hearne to attract new students because parents hear about Hearne's reputation and are aware of the large numbers of transfers leaving," he said.

The judgment also states that Mumford has only solicited the highest achieving students, leaving a void in Hearne when it comes to ranking against other districts with test scores. And because activities in small towns often revolve around their schools, the segregation also has added to the overall racial division in Hearne, the judge noted.


What this school was doing is sick, and I, myself, am glad the judge ruled the way he did. This lawsuit is about a dispute between 2 schools. It has no bearing on the state legislature whatsoever. The rulings strictly say that no student can now move from Hearne to Mumford at the state's expense.

source

One school was condoning the white flight, and according to texas law, white flight is illegal and he ruled accordingly.

I eagerly await your next flame TC..

Edit add:

Hell, it explains right here why the 2 schools differ at an academic level:


Hearne desegregated its schools in the 1970s as a result of No.5281, but white families remained reluctant to send their children to a formerly all-black school in a predominantly black area of town, the judge wrote, citing testimony from Morris McDaniel, who retired in 2002 as the town's first black superintendent.

In response, he continued, the school district began an "ability grouping" plan where students were divided among two elementary schools separated into lower ability and higher ability classes. The result was a resegregation of the schools.

After an accreditation by the TEA in 1990, however, the district dropped the plan. Hearne's overall enrollment of white students began declining each year after, while Mumford's population began a steady ascent.

"Hearne parents started transferring their children in earnest around 1991 or 1992," Justice wrote. "Even Hearne school board members transferred their children out of [formerly all black] Blackshear [Elementary School].


Test score comparison:
www.greatschools.net...
www.greatschools.net...

[edit on 8/17/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Yeah i have always though that "positive discrimination" is a strange ideology. Discrimination is never positive for the person being discriminated against. How about we try no-discrimination and treat everyone exactly the same regardless of race and see how that works? I'm not sure i understand exactly what is going on here but if the law is the same for everyone regardless of race then i have no problem with it.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by passengername
it's funny to me that people use the no "black people whose ancestors were treated unjustly by NO LIVING WHITE PERSON " line. everyone knows quality of life is largely, though not soley, influenced by economic position at birth. white people were then and are now still given a large advantage due to the injustices encountered during our country's history, ending LEGALLY within the last coupla' generations. the only way to set everything "right" would have been a complete redistribution of wealth. then everyone would be able to say everybody has the same opportunity. and I'm pretty sure that they're not forcing white kids to stay in school just because they're white and they're hoping some whitenss rubs off on the other kids. they're doing it because as long as there are some white kids in the school, the well to do white families that were established during the period of legal oppression won't/can't completely abandon it.


Thats pure tripe.

My ancestors came over to this country. They lived in a nasty Chicago neighborhood full of immigrants. They have barely enough money to survive, and my grandmother often went hungry. A one bedroom tenemant where my great grandmother and her 7 children all slept. Yet all of her kids ended up much better off in life when they grew up. They got jobs, and worked their buts off to secure a future for themselves. No one gave them a dime.

So growing up in poverty does not mean youll stay like that. Thats a crutch, a pathetic ultra left wing pipe dream. Most people with money I know were not born with it, but busted their butts to EARN it. They started out with no special advantage, but ended up well off because of HARD WORK and ETHICS. So spare me the commie re-distribution of wealth crap. I dont believe in it. People who are lazy or have no interest in working to improve their lot in life deserve to be poor and disadvantaged.

There are alot of reasons for white flight around the country, and I really do not blame people for doing it at all. This forced tolerance and reverse discrimination only increases racial tensions.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
The law is the same for all sides.. whats going on here is that in 1970, Texas outlawed segregation, one school being a black school, the other a white school.

So there was already a community of blacks around one school, and a community of whites around the other. Follow?

In an attempt to desegregate, the state setup a "academic level".. smart people go to one school, dumb people to the other (so to speak).. this caused more racial segregation due to whatever circumstances.. so they outlawed the new idea in 1990.

Since 1990 to date, the white school has been soliciting the whites (along with any high achievers, to raise school rank) to come to their school. How they were soliciting is unclear, but it must have been to a point where it came to a boiling point and a lawsuit was filed.

Now, take consideration that in 1990, the "white school" also aka "the smart kids" would have a much higher test rank, and will probably maintain it for some time to come.. so parents used that as an excuse to move their kids from the "black" school to the "smart school"...

...which, again, was not outlawed by this lawsuit, but the judge decided the state would no longer pay for it.

Its racism in disguise, no matter how you look at it. They used the excuse that one school is better (which it should be cause the state segregated the smart kids there for 20 years) to move their kids.

All Texas is trying to do is put an end to this squabble by mixing the smart kids with the dumb kids to even out the schools. Essentially, putting whites with blacks. Oh no!!




There are alot of reasons for white flight around the country, and I really do not blame people for doing it at all. This forced tolerance and reverse discrimination only increases racial tensions.


I understand this. If it were a bad nieghborhood, or a horrible school, then yeah, yank your kids. And hell, for all I know, it could be.. I'm making assumptions here base one what is presented .. and no where in the articles I've read does it mention violence, school material, or kids "picking on whites"...


[edit on 8/18/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
All Texas is trying to do is put an end to this squabble by mixing the smart kids with the dumb kids to even out the schools. Essentially, putting whites with blacks. Oh no!!


what you just said was rascist and you dont even realise it yet you lecture us on 'rascism'
. You just implied blacks are stupid compared to whites.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 18-8-2005 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by QuietSoul
All Texas is trying to do is put an end to this squabble by mixing the smart kids with the dumb kids to even out the schools. Essentially, putting whites with blacks. Oh no!!


you idiot, what you just said was rascist and you dont even realise it yet you lecture us on 'rascism'
. You just implied blacks are stupid compared to whites.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by XphilesPhan]


First off, I have not insulted you in anyway whatsoever in this entire thread, and I would appreciate it if you would give me the same respect.

And explain to me how the state trying to end an segregation that was caused by the states shortsightedness being racist?

I did not imply blacks are "stupid compared to whites" I said the state was attempt to mix the smart with the not so smart. And essentially, mixing blacks with whites (does it help if I reverse the races?)


Edit addition:

And its a fact that the academic segregation caused most blacks to be put in one school and most whites to put in another. Also, if you look at the ratings I linked above (which I'm betting you havent), it shows that whites seem to have a higher precentage then blacks in every academic.

So no, I wasnt being racist, not even on accident. I was posting something that coincides with the truth and the facts.



[edit on 8/18/2005 by QuietSoul]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join