DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
Finding forced school segregation unconstitutional is a far cry from supporting forced integration, though. How so, DS? In the case, students were being forced into segregation, which was found to be unConstitutional. So, what was happening was that they were taking people from the same area and separating them according to skin color/race. "Forced integration," on the other hand is taking people from separate areas and integrating them according to skin color/race. I would have to imagine that's just as unConstitutional. quote:
quote:
And, integrating previously schools that had been segregated by law, is a far cry from forced integration, too. Do you support a person being allowed to attend any school district in the county as long as the family is a resident of that county? Do you support mandating all the public schools in a county to have racial demographics on par with each other? How would you make that happen (if you support it)? Previously segregated schools were the result of red-lining mortgages in the North and in the South burning crosses on the lawn with assassinations such as happened to Medger Evers. In the North it was the result of neighborhood busting and white flight. Some realtor paid over the top price for one house in a white neighborhood for a black family to take up residence. I saw it happen in Opa Loka, a small city in Dade County. Whites sold their homes lickity split. My wife's uncle panicked, brought a house in an unincorporated area and the neighborhood was busted. Forced busing seemed to be the only answer. The issue of segregation there wasn't due to state law, but by mortgage company activities (unless the state laws forced the mortgage companies to do what they were doing), right? Still not the same as what was going on in Brown v. Topeka BoE. "White flight." That implies that whites aren't allowed to live where they want, even if they can afford it. How is that proper? If a white family wants to leave an area that they don't feel supports the way they want to live their lives and raise their kids, why can't they? Should whites not be allowed simply because a higher percentage of low income residents where they are moving from are black? Isn't basing any kind of legislation solely on the race/skin color of a person racial discrimination, regardless of intent? quote:
The problem with allowing kids within a county, especially a large county like Dade, arose in Athletics. Football and basketball couches searched for promising athletes in other high school districts. That was when the kid was supposed to attend the High School nearest his or her home. Another problem in a large area County like Dade arises from the cost of transportation which falls upon the parents, where there is an affordability divide. Does Dade Co. only have one School District? Lucas Co. has 9 public school districts. Sylvania has 2 HS's, and is the only one other than Toledo to have more than one HS. Within TPS, there are 8 high schools, with most of them being separated by geographic area, though not all (for instance, the "Toledo Technology Academy" is open to any student in the TPS District). There is "recruiting" going on by coaches, but only within the District. A suburban student would have to live within TPS District o attend a TPS HS. I don't know how the kids get to/from school if they aren't attending their local HS. Does Dade Co. run all the public schools? quote:
It is workable in NYC where there is an excellent transit system with reduced rates for kids. A kid from Brooklyn could attend the Bronx High School of Science on merit and if he were willing to make the long subway ride to and fro. Incidentally, local school districts went to court to get an order to enforce busing, or someone in the district did. It wasn't a popular move but there was no other way to implement Brown vs. Board. It was messy as hell. I recall one fool teacher packing a gun and in Boston's Southey area there were white riots. Do you support mandating all the public schools in a county to have racial demographics on par with each other? How would you make that happen (if you support it)? quote:
quote:
41.4% of Flint's population is white. 53.3% is black. How is Flint not having a food store racist if it's happening to all the races? State-appointed emergency managers currently run Detroit along with five other Michigan cities and three school districts. While the cities under emergency management together contain just nine percent of Michigan's population, they contain, notably, about half of the state's African-American residents. Blatant institutional racism. How is it institutional racism?!? Detroit was a complete and utter shamble, and it's already worked itself out of bankruptcy. Did you know the whole "Emergency Manager" law was passed in 1988? That's right. It was passed with a GOP Senate (20R, 18D), a Democrat House (64D, 46R), and a Democrat Governor (James Blanchard). Detroit's slide into bankruptcy was primarily done under Democratic leadership. The last time there was a GOP Mayor was in 1962. From January 1974 until January 2014, the Detroit Mayor was a black Democrat. Yeah. Detroit's troubles are institutional racism. quote:
quote:
The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from "taking jobs" from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from "exploitation" but to protect white workers from competition. How does that show increasing minimum wage costs jobs? It shows that the minimum wage law was set to reduce the attractiveness of hiring blacks. Overall jobs may not have dropped, but the number of blacks construction workers sure dropped. quote:
quote:
How many whites commit the same crimes as blacks? How many whites get incarcerated for the same crimes as blacks? Do whites get off more (I think that's the stat) because they are white? Have better lawyers? Is the "better lawyer" part based on them being white? In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the sentencing disparity between offenses for crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1. The scientifically unjustifiable 100:1 ratio meant that people faced longer sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine than for offenses involving the same amount of powder cocaine – two forms of the same drug. Most disturbingly, because the majority of people arrested for crack offenses are African American, the 100:1 ratio resulted in vast racial disparities in the average length of sentences for comparable offenses. On average, under the 100:1 regime, African Americans served virtually as much time in prison for non-violent drug offenses as whites did for violent offenses. The FSA represents a decade-long, and truly bipartisan, effort to reduce the racial disparities caused by the draconian crack cocaine sentencing laws and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system — particularly in communities of color. I recall that the president reduced the ratio even further recently by Executive Order. Are blacks not allowed to use powder cocaine? Are whites not allowed to use crack? None of that, though, shows that blacks get harsher sentences, or are found guilty more often than whites for the same crimes. Saying that 1g of crack gets you the same sentence as 100g of powder cocaine is racially motivated is ridiculous, especially without any evidence backing the claim up. Why was the disparity created (according to the Federal Government)? quote:
Stop and Frisk: it's so freakin complicated! https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1 http://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/terry-v-ohio quote:
Significantly, Terry does not provide blanket authority to intrude on an individual’s right to be left alone, nor does it allow such intrusion based on a police offers inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur or is in progress. However, it does radically expand police authority to investigate crimes where there is a reasonable basis for suspicion. Should a cop be allowed to investigate where there is reasonable basis for suspicion? Should cops only be allowed to intervene after a crime has been committed? (Yes, I changed the order of your citations. The two citations were both about the Ohio case, but the first citation contained the quote.) quote:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/has_stop_and_frisk_been_stopped] I don't know that it's really all that complicated. Either a cop is allowed to investigate on a reasonable basis for suspicion, or the cop can't. If the cop can, then there needs to be some sort of oversight on the actions, determining if the "reasonable basis for suspicion" was truly reasonable. If it isn't reasonable, then the cop has violated the victim's rights. IMO, under no circumstances should it be okay for a cop to "stop and frisk" without reasonable basis for suspicion (of which skin color/race has no merit, in general).
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|