No bio. Boring. Seriously...
So, M_A said: If the term "local control," used so frequently by the munis (including in this comment string), sounds a lot like what used to be called "states' rights" by the proponents of segregation at an earlier time, there's a good reason.
This is a great example of what I was referring to. So, people used the term "states rights" and what could we see about their conduct? They favored segregation of schools; they favored segregation of buses; they favored segregation of diners — the evidence of their meaning of "states rights" was pretty clear.
I ask again: how does the racism of the munis manifest itself? I mean, the claim is that the munis are racist and that is why they want separate schools.
But why is there no other manifestation of this racism? Our schools have diverse races teaching and administering. Our football teams are diverse, aren't they? No racism there. Eating establishments? Businesses? Is it our government? Would you point to our elected officials as evidence of racism? Where is the evidence? It ought to be plain.
It certainly was with those claiming "state rights"...
M_A, once again: how does this racism manifest itself in the munis? Is it only in the school system? Or is it elsewhere? What are the other indicative elements?
Because otherwise, how can you claim that you are not racist? I mean, if the term is only to be applied to one individual circumstance, how can you defend yourself against the libel? Perhaps your own actions and words are a simple product of a racist attitude—one that does not manifest itself in any other situation.
Do you see the problem with this argument?
Ok, you ask: "Given that the "white flight" phenomenon JBran mentions in his piece was unquestionably motivated by racism, I want the munis to tell me how their response to the MCS's surrender of its charter, Mark Norris' legislation, the overwhelming vote on Thursday to create MSD's, etc. are not similarly motivated..."
They are not similarly motivated. Here is why.
I moved out to Arlington two years ago. My job brought me there.
I appreciate all of the history of segregation and the like...but in all honesty, at some point it is the past and not applicable to the present. You can't point at me and say "Even though you were not here, you are responsible for everything that other whites did."
I want local control. I want to be able to have an election that counts as far as the education of my child goes — something that I am responsible for. I don't want to be one of 10,000 voting a single rep in.
Now, if your argument is "In the courts, history will matter..." well, fine. That is not what you write here though, right? Here you want to know how we munis can pretend — since we are delusional — to not be racists.
It is because we are not. These decisions don't come from racism. They come from a desire of local control connected with a desire for excellence in education for children.
As a question: if we are racist, how else is this racism demonstrated in our behavior? I mean, ought it not to be apparent in other ways? If so, what exactly is the evidence?
Because the evidence that we are NOT racists is clearly shown by the diverse groups moving to the suburbs, right? I mean, that does speak against your hypothesis, right?
By Chris Shaw
download this issue
click here to see more »