in the 1950s ( when widespread brutal racism still existed) around 25% of black kids were born without a dad. today it’s about 75%.

Please tell us how you think that happened.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A brutal justice system and a rediculus “war on drugs” that is rigged to favor for profit prisons

So all of those missing dads got their wives pregnant with the intent of being good dads, but got unjustly locked up.

Let's pretend I believe that. I don't, but lets pretend I do. One of the primary authors of that "brutal" crime bill which did this damage to blacks, was Joe Biden. I don't hear anyone on the left saying he's unfit because of the "brutal" way his policies treated blacks. Why is that?

I guess jim fails to understand where the majority of black live what their avg income is crime and punishment impacts .. ect ect..

Yet he sound like a missionary with all the blame and fictional solutions.. I should say no solutions
Mean housing income

Asian alone $114,105
White alone $89,632
Hispanic or Latino $68,319
Black $58,985

Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.





The black homeownership rate is now 30.5 percentage points lower than non-Hispanic whites (72.2 percent) and 22 percentage points lower than the national homeownership rate of 63.7 percent. It is also 4.6 percentage points lower than the Hispanic

In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population.
African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites.

What an amazing bubble you operate in...

Instead of playing your school choice game, let's really desegregate education.

Because despite the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown versus Board of Education decision to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed,” too many classrooms are still segregated.

School districts made significant progress toward desegregation after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the trend has shifted back toward race-based school segregation. Following court decisions in the late 1960s and 1970s that required Department of Education officials to oversee implementation of desegregation plans, the rate of black students attending majority-white schools increased dramatically from 1 percent in 1963 to 43 percent in 1983. After federal oversight phased out and schools were left to make “good faith efforts” to maintain integration, significant backsliding followed. In 2012, 74 percent of black students and 80 percent of Latino students attended schools that were 50 to 100 percent minority; and of these, more than 40 percent of black and Latino students attended schools that were 90 to 100 percent minority.

This re-segregation trend often concentrates minorities in schools with fewer resources that face challenges attracting and retaining quality teachers. A mounting body of evidence indicates that school segregation has negative impacts on short-term academic achievement of minority students and their success in later life. Integrated schools have a positive impact on all students through promoting awareness and mutual understanding and ensuring that they have the necessary tools to function in an increasingly multicultural society. Not taking intentional steps to ensure that all students have the opportunity to attend quality, integrated schools perpetuates injustice, allowing the mistakes of the past to haunt the future.

"with all the blame and fictional solutions.. I should say no solutions


Fictional solutions. Yet the social science is clear, that the best defense against poverty by far, is a strong family unit with two parents. That's fictional? That's what you're saying?

As to your other statistics, you are proving my point. Blacks are not thriving like other ethnicities. But the data again is clear. Regardless of race, when their are two committed parents who are married and don't have kids until they are older than 20, very few people live in poverty.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/t...-middle-class/

You dismiss it as a "game", because your side's stance makes it clear that democrats aren't dedicate to helping blacks advance.

I'll ask for the third time (you are really dodging like a coward). Why do democrats oppose school choice? If good schools have available seats, and there are black students who would benefit from a superior school, why would any sane person oppose school choice? Don't democrats like to identify as being "pro choice"? Seems odd that a group that identifies as being "pro choice", would oppose this particular choice, which has no downside. unless, again, the goal is to keep these people impoverished. What other reason would you oppose school choice?

What do you say to the parents who live in cities, who are desperately begging for school choice? You'd tell them they are merely playing a "game"? You don't think they have a legitimate request?

Seems very callous of you. But I'm the racist, because I want to give them every possible chance to better themselves.

Black Population in US: 47.8 million, 14.6% of USA. Think about what I posted 14.6 percent... yet 38% of the prison system..


jim I wish it was as easy as having a homogeneous family... but blacks were in a no better place when blacks had homogeneous family structure ?

And your school choice argument is a red herring argument.... it's about money not choice or willingness to help blacks

THE PROS OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND VOUCHERS
The primary benefit of school choice is that it gives parents the power to make choices for their children, based on their needs, interests and learning styles.
School choice encourages competition among area schools, which has resulted in raising the standard of education throughout all schools.
In areas with failing public schools, students have a chance at a better education when their parents have options for their schooling. The voucher program in Washington, D.C. increased student graduation rates by 21 percent overall and parents reported high levels of satisfaction with the schools.
Vouchers eliminate the need for parents to pay twice for their children's education: once with tax dollars and then again in private school tuition.
Many parents feel that it is not the government's responsibility to tell them where their children should be educated. School choice allows them to enroll their child in a school that better fits their religious, cultural or racial background.
A study shows that school choice and the school voucher program in Louisiana has resulted in reduced racial segregation. Many families have used vouchers to avoid the "school-to-prison pipeline" by getting their children out of racist or gang-dominated schools.
THE CONS OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND VOUCHER PROGRAMS
The voucher program takes money away from the public school system. The lower student population may not offset the decreased budget and this can undermine the value of public education. Many believe that families with the means to send their children to private schools should be responsible for those costs instead of taking money from low-income area public schools.
Many private schools are religious, and opponents of the voucher system believe it constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state.
Public schools are required to meet the needs of disabled and special-needs students while private schools are not, meaning those students are not able to use vouchers.
In some areas, students attending private schools did not perform better academically than public school students. In some cases, students showed no improvement in reading skills and suffered losses in math.
Parents don't always make better school choices for their children. It's important to weigh the pros and cons of each available school as some may not be better than the neighborhood public school.
Private schools can be insular, whereas public schools have a demographic mix of religions, socio-economic groups and cultures. Public schools are important for promoting democracy.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SCHOOL CHOICE
The Brookings Institution and the Center on Reinventing Public Education studied 18 cities offering public school choice and have published a report on how school choice is playing out for families in those cities. The data in their report, both pro and con, can help focus the school choice debate on facts rather than emotions.

Are you losing it again, you’re calling people names and have a very thin skin. Did someone take your stapler?

So your solution to pandemic lack of education is to conduct a triage and decide which of the poorly educated should be given a chance at a better education in one of the empty seats in a “good” school.
Every one of them deserves a chance at a good education.
Some children being required to go to a “bad” school because of their socioeconomic status or race is...........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that's because blacks commit a disproportionate share of violent crime, then they should make up a disproportionate share of prisons. Shouldn't they?

But yet blacks commit 53% of the murders and 54% of the robberies. That's why they are incarcerated at such a high rate.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-43
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your "cons" apply to the failing schools, primarily. So are you saying we should force inner city kids to stay in failing schools, to make life easier on the people who work at the failing schools? Isn't this supposed to be for the kids?

school choice can exclude religious schools.

No strong arguments there. The people in the cities want it, because they know it will help their kids.

You refused to answer a very simple question. Makes you a coward.

School choice is one solution. Not "the" solution. Best to fix the broken schools, but on the meantime, why let empty seats go to waste at good schools?

So you're opposed to the lottery system. Yet liberals love magnet and charter schools, which usually result in a lottery. What's the difference?

So in your mind, because there aren't enough seats in good schools for all of the city kids, you'd choose to give none of then a seat at a good school, rather than give some of them a shot at a better school.

Again, that's very contrary to the notion that black lives matter.

But that's because cops look the other way when whites commit murder.

And if you scroll down that link to the 2nd chart and look at the break down for "Under 18" it jumps dramatically in the violent crime categories. That doesn't bode well for the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not much bodes well for the short-term future. Though when I see kids into scouting or martial arts, I have to say I like what I see. Other than that? I dunno...

Jim you complaining about black communities and its liberals fault

Than you go back to they committed more crimes what do I expect ..

Why wouldn't they ? Even you paint a Dyer portrayal of their conditions


Cause and effect

so you deny that blacks disproportionately commit violent crime? let’s clarify that point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Liberals run the overwhelming majority of black communities. Whose fault is it, if not the people who run those places?

Liberalism encourages fatherlessness. Liberalism suggests that sex is casual, that the traditional family is an anachronism, that real women can do it all without a man, that divorce is no big deal, that masculinity is toxic, and liberalism also pays teenage girls to have babies, and pays them more if there is no dad around, which to the surprise of no sane person, creates more fatherlessness.

Fatherlessness leads to poverty, which leads to hopelessness, and especially to young boys acting out violently. Which means more arrests.

You go ahead and tell me what I said, which you think is incorrect.

Liberals want their inner city blacks right where they are on the economic ladder. That why every democrat in congress was miserable when Trump announced at the SOTU that black unemployment was at its lowest ever. WHy do you suppose that democrats were so miserable about that fact?

It's also why they oppose school choice. Got to keep them on the plantations that are our modern day cities. Give them just enough to stay alive and vote democrat, never ever give them the tools to get ahead.

Your a broken record saying the same thing 10 different ways expecting a different response. While still not providing a solution..

Ps blacks live in Republican run cities and their situations are no better ..

i never said that if a failing city elects a republican mayor, that the city will thrive. what i said, is that liberalism makes it worse.

we have spent trillions and trillions in the war on poverty. it’s nit about money. lack of money isn’t the cause of poverty, it’s a symptom.

the cause is usually making bad decisions. liberalism encourages the exact decisions that guarantee poverty.

you can tell me i’m a broken record. that doesn’t mean i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THE EDUCATION OF MINORITY CHILDREN©
by Thomas Sowell

http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html

As we all know, 1954 was the year of the famous racial desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education. In order to comply with the law, without having a massive shift of students, the District's school officials decided to turn all public schools in Washington into neighborhood schools.
By this time, the neighborhood around Dunbar High School was rundown. This had not affected the school's academic standards, however, because black students from all over the city went to Dunbar, though very few of those who lived in its immediate vicinity did.
When Dunbar became a neighborhood school, the whole character of its student body changed radically-- and the character of its teaching staff changed very soon afterward. In the past, many Dunbar teachers had continued to teach for years after they were eligible for retirement because it was such a fulfilling experience. Now, as inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students flooded into the school, teachers began retiring, some as early as 55 years of age. Inside of a very few years, Dunbar became just another failing ghetto school, with all the problems that such schools have, all across the country. Eighty-five years of achievement simply vanished into thin air.

Where did the inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students suddenly appear from? Were they being educated prior to 1954?

Point is, integration was not necessary for success. Being an all black school was not a detriment. What mattered was the rigor and discipline of the students, the solid curricula taught by teachers dedicated to the success of their students, and the high standards set by the principals.

Nor was being from the "middle class" necessary. Most of the students came from below the middle class.

No, that's Sowell's claim of why Dunbar was a success in spite of being all black.
But then he specifically points to the entrance of inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students from the surrounding all black neighborhood as the reason for the change at Dunbar.

Where did the inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students suddenly appear from? Were they being educated prior to 1954?

Now its liberalism makes things worse..

You really need to decide what your implying .. your tight rope act is failing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Sowell article was a response to your "This re-segregation trend often concentrates minorities in schools with fewer resources that face challenges attracting and retaining quality teachers. A mounting body of evidence indicates that school segregation has negative impacts on short-term academic achievement of minority students and their success in later life. Integrated schools have a positive impact on all students through promoting awareness and mutual understanding and ensuring that they have the necessary tools to function in an increasingly multicultural society. Not taking intentional steps to ensure that all students have the opportunity to attend quality, integrated schools perpetuates injustice, allowing the mistakes of the past to haunt the future."

The Sowell article, though not specifically meant as a counterpoint to yours, points out that it is not necessary to integrate schools in order to provide quality education. Nor are the money or the so-called necessary tools which are supposedly more abundant in integrated schools necessary factors for education that leads to success.

Nor is he arguing against integrated schools.

His article, in effect, points out the necessary key ingredients for quality education. And he is proposing that it is those ingredients, regardless if a school is integrated or not, which are necessary for quality education.

I think he laments that the approaches taken by the successful all black schools have been cast aside for the implementation of various theoretical social and pedagogical notions which are obviously failing not only minorities but even most whites.

The approach taken by those historic black schools were successful not because they were "black." They were actually very white, Western civilization, pedagogy. They were classically rigorous. They demanded discipline. They molded good, industrious, citizens who were far better prepared to face a world in which the ability to think, with discipline and motivation, is required, than are the public schools in the urban black neighborhoods of today. And the leftist political resistance to charter schools, or school choice, or vouchers, or religious schools (all alternatives in their way similar to old Dunbar High), which give minorities a chance at a better education, keeps many black children stuck in failure.

Integration is perfectly fine. Certainly a desirable goal. But it is not the answer for quality education. Growing up in Detroit, I went to integrated schools. What was required of students in order to get the most out of what was being taught, were the very things that were required of students attending the old Dunbar high school and the other successful all black schools of the past. And that rigor and discipline was required of all students, black or white. Those who slacked, did poorly or not as well. Black or white. Those who were serious and disciplined, were prepared for a better life. Black or white.

There is a classical notion that personal responsibility is the key to success. There is the Progressive notion of collective responsibility directed by experts and enforced by government being the only truly viable and equitable path to success.

The classical path admired by Sowell is old school. The Progressive new school shuns the classical as elitist, repressive, unfair, even racist. There is a competition between the ideas, even in how and what to teach.

Yeah, the classical may work, but it is mean spirited and inconsiderate of the basic needs of the less advantaged. It breeds contempt and animosity. Conflict and rebellion. The Progressive is still in its experimental stage, but will lead us to a better world.

So they say. In the meantime, we have an educational wilderness.

I said go talk to your friends who are diverse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice name calling... that devolved quickly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To put a finer point together in response to this... comment...

You said the following:

“ notice that liberals oppose all the things that would help blacks
get ahead - in tact nuclear families, having dads, school choice, jobs over welfare.”

Based on the above quote, it seems that the preconceived notions you have are that you believe that “blacks” would “get ahead” if they only focused on intact nuclear families, having dads, exercising their right to the school choice they are demanding and choosing to work over claiming welfare.

That comment insinuates you believe people of color don’t care about nuclear families, father figures in their lives and working. I’m not 100% sure I even need to include the school choice thing here to move forward with my point.

The above is troubling, at least to me. Not to you maybe, but I think if the people you associate with are truly as diverse as you claim them to be when you asked me where I “get off” assuming you hang out with only people like you (after I clearly hadn’t done so), then I encourage you to debate the quoted line with them in the context you chose to apply it on this forum.

If your quoted post was not what you intended, maybe you just need to revise your point, but as stated, it’s a head scratcher that you’re calling me the jackass...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he's probably tired of the dripping sanctimony from the leftists here and elsewhere...it does wear on you:kewl:

Where did the disrupters suddenly appear from to destroy the Utopian experience that existed at Dunbar is a simple question that points out the fault in Sowell’s hypothesis that integration ruined Dunbar.

There easily could have been many other factors that changed to make the school and all of it’s members less successful. Aging leadership that doesn’t provide for continuity in mission along with an aging staff and then compounded by a significant mission change would disrupt any organization.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sowell stated very clearly that, contrary to aging leadership, it was the early retirements of once dedicated teachers and principals caused by the destruction of the ability to impose a work and discipline ethic and, presumably, the influx of current anti-disciplinary pedagogical theories that destroyed what Dunbar was and turned it into just another ghetto neighborhood school. A typical type of school that provides jobs for those with education degrees but doesn't provide the necessary disciplined and demanding learning environment required to produce quality education.

Various alternative school systems (with Dunbar-like aspirations), charter, choice, vouchers, etc. try to bypass the current education industry lock on the neighborhood school notion. But the industry and its union members with their paid for political lackeys, resist.

Oddly enough children with involved parents will usually excel in any school they attend and most with parents who are not, will not.
What concerns me more is mainstreaming the least educable and removing funding for programs for the top tier. That has been going on for the last 25 years and as a board member 20+ years ago I saw the effects of it. Dunbar would fall within that group.
In large part I believe that is what has driven the push for Charter, etc. schools.
It also has caused some very intelligent kids without involved parents to be lost in the educational system.
And I do agree with you on our self perpetuating education system, where those who excel at "school" become educators, love meetings about "school" and don't necessarily become skilled at teaching.
Luckily it is not true in all cases.

the marxist new york times cancel culture...I thought these people were supposed to be open-minded, more highly educated, tolerant, all about peace the party of "Love" and stuff:hihi:

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Pot meet Kettle

Tweety is the original cancel culture proponent, from Apple to the Wall Street Journal, he has wanted them all fired, boycotted and cancelled.

Then look at "conservative" publications and search for critics of Tweety. There are very few. National Review got rid of David French and Jonah Goldberg. WSJ lost Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. Fox News has lots of Tweety propagandists, but sent George Will down the road.

So if you are a centrist, you will get cancelled, by one side or the other.

She didn’t have the lock step down.