Why racial segregation is unacceptable but socioeconomic segregation is ok in private schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am new to dc and I noticed the stark difference between the two types of segregation. Private schools are happy if they are racially diverse, but not so happy to be diverse in terms of socioeconomic groups. If find this attitude a bit schizophrenic. Do you think this is ok?

What are you talking about? It is unclear. What makes you think anyone is unhappy about socioeconomic groups? Can you give specific evidence and examples?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP were you born yesterday? Public schools are way more segregated than private on this axis. Private schools are paying millions per year for socioeconomic diversity through financial aid. Meanwhile home prices and NIMBY behavior are keeping good public schools behind locked gates for most.

You hit the nail on the head.

Sure. Private schools are more inclusive than public schools.

it's not the schools it's the people. Wherever you go, there the people are. People exclude others not like them.

Sure. That makes it acceptable.

It's human nature. For all the inclusion talk there are so many kids left on the sidelines. Not cool enough, too weird, annoying, etc. Why focus on just SES or race? Exclusion happens in every single classroom.

Because those things are resulted from something the kid nor the kid’s family can control and has been happening to the same race of people for hundreds of years on US soil.

Yes, and there is something called the civil rights act since 1964. In case you have not noticed it.


Discrimination has been going on since humanity lumbered from the primordial ooze. All races, every corner of earth, all since day one.

Yes, and there is something called the civil rights act since 1964. In case you have not noticed it.

And the same groups of people who were targeted and discriminated against before the Civil Rights Act, are still the main targets of discrimination in this country.

But it’s illegal and they have recourse

Very little recourse and that’s why it has continued.

More recourse and less racism than before the “great society” and yet still worse outcomes while other racial minorities have sprung to the top of the US socioeconomic ladder.

Hard to call the US a successful racist country when Indians and other Asians are now atop the socio-economic standings.

Systematic discrimination hasn’t been targeting those groups and they are willing to assimilate.

Asians were not systemically discriminated against in the US? Right.

They have become a protected class. We have anti-Asian hate laws. There are groups that have gotten them that haven’t received any anti-hate laws.

You don’t see Asians getting murdered on video with no charges being filed or a mock trial staged for the public where the prosecution clearly doesn’t want to convict.

We even have Asians who have received reparations for mistreatment that happened to them.

They were violently discriminated against nonetheless. Years later, they were once again discriminated against as the evidence in recent Supreme Court cases made clear. Still. They lead the way economically.

Agreed, however there are groups that have suffered far more discrimination and violence right here on US soil. The courts have turned a blind eye to these other groups. They can’t get justice.
The same people that fought for that fight your you when you suffer the discrimination and injustices, you turn around and attack with the oppressors.
If you are leading so much, why are you still complaining and worried about what someone else is getting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Racial segregation is fine, too. No reason to be squeamish. If you want to send your kids to school with other wealthy white kids, you should be able to do that.

You can. There are private schools in the DMV that are basically all white. There are also private schools that are really diverse, but basically no URM’s if that’s what you want. We even have privates that don’t offer financial aid, if your don’t want your kids around other kids that come from families who can’t afford the tuition.

We have variety here n the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Yeah. Everybody can buy what the want and fly on magical unicorns that poop diamonds. Most people can't even afford health care jacka**. Plus our oligarchy is very similar to Russia imo. Does anyone know if Russia exploits education and health care. If it turns out that it is socialism like in Israel I would not be surprised. We should all take issue with our takes give away to people that get the basics.

[Anonymous]

US taxes given away to socialism when US workers are excluded from it here*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its very simple. Why it is ok to advertise racial diversity metrics (most private schools report that) and no information whatsoever on socioeconomic diversity. For instance how many students from families with a salary under 100k receive aid. It would be interesting to know more about that data. But of course, many people would not like to know about that.

My private does publish this information fwiw.

Most do, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way for private schools to be more economically diverse in this area to offer school vouchers so that any kid can go to any school they want and are capable of getting in. The vouchers would have to be enough to at least the tuition amount of the lowest private school. This program would force public schools to shape up their curriculum and quality if they want to stay open. Open competition is always a good thing.

Texas is starting this program next year and you can already see the MC families gaming the system to get their kids priority. Private school applications at my kids’ school was up 270% this year. Really it is taking money away from the public schools and sponsoring MC families to go to private school. My kid was already in private with ADHD - we have parents pay tuition so this is just a discount for already wealthy people. The politicians know this.

It's not taking money away, the money follows the kids. If the MC kid isn't there, the school doesn't get the money. The school that kid goes to gets instead. What's the problem?

If you haven't done enough research to understand the problem, you shouldn't be offering an opinon as if you know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, people do not like talking about this!

Private school is inherently elitist no matter the metric used for selection. We are more comfortable with elitism along economic lines than race. A lot of what you are buying with a private school education is cultural exclusivity and isn't really about academics and that has always been the case, though of course within the private school community, people will also compete for academic superiority (it is not enough for a hierarchy to exist between the wealthy and the poor, there must also be hierarchies among the wealthy, and academics are one though never the most important one).

A private school that was selective based purely on academics, with scholarships for those who could not afford it, is interesting in theory but ignores the fact that being able to choose your kids' peers' parents is one of the things people like most about private.

Regis in NYC is real, not a theory. Wouldn’t it be interesting if there was such a school in DC? Let’s talk social justice and Quaker values! An STA where every boy applies for 9th grade and it’s free!

Regis can only afford to do this because they got a million dollar philanthropic endowment donation in 1912 that is now worth over 130 million. Very few high schools even come close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, people do not like talking about this!

Private school is inherently elitist no matter the metric used for selection. We are more comfortable with elitism along economic lines than race. A lot of what you are buying with a private school education is cultural exclusivity and isn't really about academics and that has always been the case, though of course within the private school community, people will also compete for academic superiority (it is not enough for a hierarchy to exist between the wealthy and the poor, there must also be hierarchies among the wealthy, and academics are one though never the most important one).

A private school that was selective based purely on academics, with scholarships for those who could not afford it, is interesting in theory but ignores the fact that being able to choose your kids' peers' parents is one of the things people like most about private.

Regis in NYC is real, not a theory. Wouldn’t it be interesting if there was such a school in DC? Let’s talk social justice and Quaker values! An STA where every boy applies for 9th grade and it’s free!

Regis can only afford to do this because they got a million dollar philanthropic endowment donation in 1912 that is now worth over 130 million. Very few high schools even come close.

The San Miguel middle school in DC is free. It has to raise money but it’s free.

Imagine if GDS walked its talk and went tuition-free, raising money from famous and rich alumni and making ninth grade admissions an open process where everyone has to apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

If you take all financial aid and give to low income families and then the rest of families pay full tuition that is budget neutral. Not sure why upper income families really need financial aid at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

Low income kids will suffer in an affluent school, hence it is better to exclude them. Very logical.

[Anonymous]

OP, because private schools exist for rich people to get their kids away from poor people.