Hypocrisy about diverse schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love diversity such as Foreign wealth, political wealth, contracting wealth, medical wealth or even law wealth. That said I don’t very much care for poor people who typically don’t do well in affluent environments where their nose is rubbed in how much they don’t have 24/7.

Same reasons I don’t like working with stupid people, playing sports with fat people, dating ugly people or drinking with sober people. They have very little to offer the situation

Then stay at your wealthy school, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

Different people have different opinions and place priorities on different things. Some people do see some problems when a school is not diverse enough. There are some schools that don't have any diversity - as a result or as a goal.

I see no problem for parents wanting to choose a school with more or less diversity. However, trying to make a school more or less diverse, is not the same thing.

Depends on the diversity, and the reason, eh?

Doesn't matter at all. That is purely personal choice. I do not need to know why other people make those personal choices, even if their reasons were evil.

Trying to shape a school, is not a personal choice, and that matters. My opinion on that is, do NOT deliberately make schools more or less diverse, and do not use "diversity" as a criteria to judge schools.

But when all the minority majority schools consistently score at the bottom of just about every objective criteria, where do we go from there? Why does inclusion always correspond to a lowering of standards? Until that is truly addressed it is neaive to not expect pushback no matter the fervor of the kumbaya mandate. While easy to label it racism, one might find some benefit to taking a step back and analyzing the dominant party’s struggle to propagate that privilege/dominance. At the very least learning more about the actual mechanics could both assist with emulation and elimination.

What the hell does this mean?

DP. It means that it's the poor people's responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps by being more like rich people. I think. That's what the "Something something kumbaya something something" post usually mean.

PP....yep, exactly what I thought. It would be nice to hear the poster expound on that long nonsensical statement though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

I mean, segregation is also a result. It is the result of deliberate housing and educational policy decisions going back decades. It is also the result of personal choices that reinforce patterns of segregation, and pressure brought to bear on the government to maintain segregated schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that this is sickening. People on this site are constantly calling out "racists" but few of them would invite a POC into their home unless they were wealthy and would run in horror from any neighborhood with more than a token amount of diversity. I'm white and wealthy and I'm disgusted by the overt racism exhibited around me.

But how do you know this about anonymous posters on an Internet forum? Or about anyone but the most extreme and vocal racists? You are making ignorant assumptions about other people to make yourself feel more enlightened. People can want to live among and be friends with a diverse group of people without having their kids deal with the problems associated with a high poverty community. Why do you think minorities who make money generally move to new neighborhoods? Is it because they are racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

I mean, segregation is also a result. It is the result of deliberate housing and educational policy decisions going back decades. It is also the result of personal choices that reinforce patterns of segregation, and pressure brought to bear on the government to maintain segregated schools.

True, segregation is also a result. If you believe there were, or still are, (government) policies that deliberately aimed at helping segregation, then go against it. I would certain support that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that this is sickening. People on this site are constantly calling out "racists" but few of them would invite a POC into their home unless they were wealthy and would run in horror from any neighborhood with more than a token amount of diversity. I'm white and wealthy and I'm disgusted by the overt racism exhibited around me.

Some of the people on this site don't have to invite people of color in their home because the people of color already live there (and are posting on this site).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

I mean, segregation is also a result. It is the result of deliberate housing and educational policy decisions going back decades. It is also the result of personal choices that reinforce patterns of segregation, and pressure brought to bear on the government to maintain segregated schools.

True, segregation is also a result. If you believe there were, or still are, (government) policies that deliberately aimed at helping segregation, then go against it. I would certain support that.

Sure there are, starting with zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

Different people have different opinions and place priorities on different things. Some people do see some problems when a school is not diverse enough. There are some schools that don't have any diversity - as a result or as a goal.

I see no problem for parents wanting to choose a school with more or less diversity. However, trying to make a school more or less diverse, is not the same thing.

Depends on the diversity, and the reason, eh?

Doesn't matter at all. That is purely personal choice. I do not need to know why other people make those personal choices, even if their reasons were evil.

Trying to shape a school, is not a personal choice, and that matters. My opinion on that is, do NOT deliberately make schools more or less diverse, and do not use "diversity" as a criteria to judge schools.

But when all the minority majority schools consistently score at the bottom of just about every objective criteria, where do we go from there? Why does inclusion always correspond to a lowering of standards? Until that is truly addressed it is neaive to not expect pushback no matter the fervor of the kumbaya mandate. While easy to label it racism, one might find some benefit to taking a step back and analyzing the dominant party’s struggle to propagate that privilege/dominance. At the very least learning more about the actual mechanics could both assist with emulation and elimination.

What the hell does this mean?

DP. It means that it's the poor people's responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps by being more like rich people. I think. That's what the "Something something kumbaya something something" post usually mean.

How does a society chose who gets on the lifeboats when there are more people than spots. You exspect rich people to jeopardize their children’s spot for other people kids? Tell you what, let me know how that works out for you. People get well off specifically to provide their children with “advantages”. Advantage means a leg up on someone else, that someone else has only a few options;
1:run faster to make up the ground
2:run the race and complain about how it wasn’t fair and ask for a medal anyway
3:stand there in and complain while everyone else is running

If you change the goal line to help the kids with less, I assure you the rich will change the game.

[Anonymous]

Expect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

I mean, segregation is also a result. It is the result of deliberate housing and educational policy decisions going back decades. It is also the result of personal choices that reinforce patterns of segregation, and pressure brought to bear on the government to maintain segregated schools.

True, segregation is also a result. If you believe there were, or still are, (government) policies that deliberately aimed at helping segregation, then go against it. I would certain support that.

School zones are a policy. So desegregation can start with the policy of school zones. Done and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How does a society chose who gets on the lifeboats when there are more people than spots. You exspect rich people to jeopardize their children’s spot for other people kids? Tell you what, let me know how that works out for you. People get well off specifically to provide their children with “advantages”. Advantage means a leg up on someone else, that someone else has only a few options;
1:run faster to make up the ground
2:run the race and complain about how it wasn’t fair and ask for a medal anyway
3:stand there in and complain while everyone else is running

If you change the goal line to help the kids with less, I assure you the rich will change the game.

I can remember in the 1980s when people with R after their name were still talking about a rising tide lifting all life(boats) and "growing the pie" instead of fighting over who gets a bigger piece. I guess all rhetoric like that has been abandoned now, and it's all "I've got mine, you're on your own, Jack" all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

I mean, segregation is also a result. It is the result of deliberate housing and educational policy decisions going back decades. It is also the result of personal choices that reinforce patterns of segregation, and pressure brought to bear on the government to maintain segregated schools.

True, segregation is also a result. If you believe there were, or still are, (government) policies that deliberately aimed at helping segregation, then go against it. I would certain support that.

School zones are a policy. So desegregation can start with the policy of school zones. Done and done.

I do not see that as a policy "deliberately aimed at segregation". I see that as a policy aimed at kids going to schools (reasonably) close to where they live. Of course if you find better ways of achieving that (proximity, not diversity or segregation), I think that can be open for discussion.

On the other hand, the so-called "bus-in-bus-out", is a policy deliberately aimed at (changing) diversity, which I clearly oppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

I mean, segregation is also a result. It is the result of deliberate housing and educational policy decisions going back decades. It is also the result of personal choices that reinforce patterns of segregation, and pressure brought to bear on the government to maintain segregated schools.

True, segregation is also a result. If you believe there were, or still are, (government) policies that deliberately aimed at helping segregation, then go against it. I would certain support that.

School zones are a policy. So desegregation can start with the policy of school zones. Done and done.

So you see now value in neighborhood schools? Maybe if you didn’t secretly resent your neighbors and neighborhood you would ok going to school where and with who you live near. Instead you wish to break up an entire community concept to reach a goal that isn’t even defined or obtainable. Your bitterness both internal and external is sad. I hope you find peace

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I do not see that as a policy "deliberately aimed at segregation". I see that as a policy aimed at kids going to schools (reasonably) close to where they live. Of course if you find better ways of achieving that (proximity, not diversity or segregation), I think that can be open for discussion.

On the other hand, the so-called "bus-in-bus-out", is a policy deliberately aimed at (changing) diversity, which I clearly oppose.

"Neighborhood schools" in neighborhoods zoned to exclude people is not segregation? The things I learn on DCUM.

Also, so-called "bus-in-bus-out" by whom? I googled the phrase. It seems to refer to mining, not schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you see now value in neighborhood schools? Maybe if you didn’t secretly resent your neighbors and neighborhood you would ok going to school where and with who you live near. Instead you wish to break up an entire community concept to reach a goal that isn’t even defined or obtainable. Your bitterness both internal and external is sad. I hope you find peace

What does that mean?