Now now....just because the point that started this thread (in spite of numerous links posted by me referencing the Maryland State Board of Education web site) has now been outed as being a part of a real, legitimate movement and not some whacky, out of touch news article as you at first tried to frame it is no reason to get upset.

In response to your bullet points:

1) That's why they're supposed to perform studies before instituting these types of social experiments on our children.

2) How trite. Re-read the Maryland policy; what's suggested here is not simply an "investigation" of alternatives to reduce disparity, it's an ACTUAL and complete leveling of any (statistical) disparity in less than 3 years. Think about this for a moment, how do you modify the punishment statistics as a school administrator or teacher when you actually have control over only a very small, minute portion of that which is in a student's life that is actually causing misbehavior and have no control over many of the primary factors (poor home life, bad/weak parenting, wrong friends, psychological and self-esteem issues, and so on and so forth)? How do you get those race-based statistics down when you don't actually have control over many of those root causes of misbehavior in your student population? Think about it.

3) This is has never been an issue in the thread. For, it has been I (certainly not you), that has first and foremost brought this up time and again as being the singular silver lining in this policy. Do not claim this as your own.

As we see other school systems (Oakland) begin to take on this same racist approach as O'Malley's Board of Education (instituting policy that encourages the administration of punishment based on an offendors race without making an effort to focus on reducing the causes of the offenses themselves regardless of race), it becomes readily apparent that you have deluded yourself into thinking this is a positive turn of events.


How is it that nearly every single person posting in response to the Oakland Tribune "gets it" (including blacks), but you don't?

Just because you run an internet board, doesn't mean that what you say on it is well-informed. Please re-examine the the policy and think through its implications in the REAL world.

This is a bad, racist policy. Bad for Oakland, CA, bad for the State of Maryland, and bad for our local children regardless of race.

Anonymous wrote:Another school system has joined Martin O'Malley and the Maryland Board of Education in signing on-board with the Obama administration's afformentioned, misguided philosophy of promoting a race-based quota system for school discipline .

Oakland schools enter agreement with feds to reduce suspensions of black students
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_21650203/oakland-schools-enter-agreement-feds-reduce-suspensions-black

What's racist is not this post, but rather the idea that it's "okay" to hand out (or withold) punishment based on race.

I said it before and will say it again, Maryland Governor O'Malley (and now the Oakland's Board of Education also) proposal of finding alternatives for misbehaving students to get an education whilst being punished gets an A+. That is as it should be. However, Martin O'Malley's endorsement and participation in this movement from the perspective of unfairly dolling out punishments based on the race of the offender (reducing punishment for blacks, and increasing harsher more frequent punishments for whites and asians).

Let me guess, next someone will say the Oakland Tribune is racist too. Puh-leaze. Your bank called. They said your race card is over the credit limit on this one.

The Facebook poster's at the bottom of that Oakland Tribune article get it, even if there are a few self-loathing brainwashed liberals in this thread that do not. Wake-up. If not for yourselves, then for your own children, for pete's sakes.

Unlike you, the Oakland Tribune appears to be accurate in its reporting of the Board's decision. There is nothing in the article that supports your contention that punishments for blacks will be reduced and punishments for whites and asians will be increased. Rather, a focus on finding alternatives for out-of-school suspensions will probably result in a reduction of such punishments among students of all races.

Instead of the racially-divisive fear-mongering you have been engaging in, you need to consider the following:

1) When an offense is broadly defined, are you certain that equivalent actions by students of diverse racial backgrounds are categorized consistently?

2) If not, do you propose maintaining the status quo or investigating alternatives for reducing the disparity?

3) Even if the higher rates of out-of-school suspensions given to black and special education students are deserved, doesn't the negative impact of such suspensions to the students' educations justify a search for methods to reduce such suspensions?

Another school system has joined Martin O'Malley and the Maryland Board of Education in signing on-board with the Obama administration's afformentioned, misguided philosophy of promoting a race-based quota system for school discipline .

Oakland schools enter agreement with feds to reduce suspensions of black students
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_21650203/oakland-schools-enter-agreement-feds-reduce-suspensions-black

What's racist is not this post, but rather the idea that it's "okay" to hand out (or withold) punishment based on race.

I said it before and will say it again, Maryland Governor O'Malley (and now the Oakland's Board of Education also) proposal of finding alternatives for misbehaving students to get an education whilst being punished gets an A+. That is as it should be. However, Martin O'Malley's endorsement and participation in this movement from the perspective of unfairly dolling out punishments based on the race of the offender (reducing punishment for blacks, and increasing harsher more frequent punishments for whites and asians).

Let me guess, next someone will say the Oakland Tribune is racist too. Puh-leaze. Your bank called. They said your race card is over the credit limit on this one.

The Facebook poster's at the bottom of that Oakland Tribune article get it, even if there are a few self-loathing brainwashed liberals in this thread that do not. Wake-up. If not for yourselves, then for your own children, for pete's sakes.

Anonymous wrote:This is a very racist post!

Very racist! Not appreciated.

OMFG.

Anonymous wrote:

If the Department identifies a school’s discipline process as having a
disproportionate impact on minority or special education students, the local school system
shall prepare and present to the State Board a plan to reduce the disproportionate impact
within 1 year and eliminate it within 3 years.

I think it is simply a fact that in many districts black and special ed kids get discipline actions more frequently. This policy seems to say that if that does occur, it needs to be changed. What is missing is any analysis of whether those kids are committing more infractions and THAT is why they are receiving more discipline actions. It simply does not make sense to simply assert that it must be prejudice that is causing this without allowing for the quite real possibility that those children are - for whatever reason - misbehaving more often.

Given that the first step outlined in the legislation is the development of a method to collect and analyze data, I think it is too early to suggest that the type of analysis you propose will not be done. In fact, given that controlling for various factors is part and parcel of most data analysis initiatives, I'd be surprised if that was part of the undertaking.

If the Department identifies a school’s discipline process as having a
disproportionate impact on minority or special education students, the local school system
shall prepare and present to the State Board a plan to reduce the disproportionate impact
within 1 year and eliminate it within 3 years.

I think it is simply a fact that in many districts black and special ed kids get discipline actions more frequently. This policy seems to say that if that does occur, it needs to be changed. What is missing is any analysis of whether those kids are committing more infractions and THAT is why they are receiving more discipline actions. It simply does not make sense to simply assert that it must be prejudice that is causing this without allowing for the quite real possibility that those children are - for whatever reason - misbehaving more often.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question...

How are they to determine who falls into which category? Are they to go look at what parents designated on some form or are they going to make best guess base on phenotype? I know many people whose "race" is ambiguous and can't be determined by looks..

This seems surreal...

As of 11/12 school year kids are already being categories even if the parent leaves the info blank.

That takes a bit of nerve. The same people preaching to our kids that race doesn't matter, that we're all equal and should be treated with an even hand, turn around, go back to their offices and at the first chance they get start tracking our kids race, and using it as a factor in the distribution and reporting of punitive actions.

Dr. King would be spinning in his grave.

Anonymous wrote:I have a question...

How are they to determine who falls into which category? Are they to go look at what parents designated on some form or are they going to make best guess base on phenotype? I know many people whose "race" is ambiguous and can't be determined by looks..

This seems surreal...

As of 11/12 school year kids are already being categories even if the parent leaves the info blank.

Anonymous wrote:Item C is the key text. It second guesses the judgement of the school administrators that are on the ground, aware of the incidents and infractions they are evaluating, pressuring them to make disciplinary decisions they otherwise would not make by injecting the race card into disciplinary process.

Moreover, from the report link that you cut and pasted from the OP:

BE TIMELY AND OPEN
• A school system must conduct its disciplinary process in a
timely and open way.
• A school system should provide to the students’ representative
any document it intends to use at a hearing.
END DISPARATE IMPACT
• To the extent that the disciplinary process is shown to have
disproportionate impact on minority and/or special education
students, a school system must present a plan to this Board to
end such disparate impact.

PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
• When out-of-school suspension is imposed, a school system
must provide at least minimum educational services to the
student.

The sections in black make absolute sense. Bravo.

The section in red assumes that if the children of a given race are suspended at a greater rate than children of other races, that there must be some injustice perpetrated by the school administrators, and that the school system must be pressured to come up with a plan to, on very short order (1-3 years) either not suspend children of that race as much, or to equally suspend children of other races. Plain and simple, the very thought of pressuring school systems to inject racial considerations into their disciplinary decisions is itself RACIST. On that there is no question.

How trite to focus on the DailyCaller, when 2/3 of the reference materials made available in the original message clearly referred the reader to information published on Maryland State government web sites, not the least of which was the report itself (which you so aptly regurgitated through a copy and paste).

But, I guess when you rely on extracting only those portions of a post that convenience your point, that is to be expected.

Fortunately as has been seen throughout this thread, the DCUM community is, for the greater part, too smart to fall for that. I will save you some trouble and simply say that you do your visitors an injustice by clouding the truth behind this bad O'Malley policy.

Let's be clear. My view was established by what is in the report. You apparently, had your view set for you by the Daily Caller and are now trying to find parts of the report to support your preconceived view.

The language you quoted doesn't exist in the revised draft of the report that was actually approved by the Board, which is available here:

http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/42ED8EDA-AF34-4058-B275-03189163882D/32853/SchoolDisciplineandAcademicSuccessReportFinalJuly2.pdf

The language I quoted is actual proposed regulations.

The text of the actual regulation is fairly similar to what you have above:

"C. If the Department identifies a school’s discipline process as having a disproportionate impact on minority or special education students, the local school system shall prepare and present to the State Board a plan to reduce the disproportionate impact within 1 year and eliminate it within 3 years. "

Again, notice that this does not require that "schools systems will now be pressured and forced to racially discriminate against children when dolling out punishments..." as the original poster says. It does not require that "those sweet oriental kids are going to have to be suspended and expelled from schools at a rate that is equal to the rate that blacks are suspended, expelled, and otherwise punished..." as the original poster also stated. In fact, this does not mean that the Maryland Board of Education backed a race-based quota-system for school discipline as the topic of this thread states.

First, a method of collecting and analyzing data needs to be established. Then, data has to be collected to illustrate whether a disproportionate impact exists. Then, if it does, a plan must be developed and presented to the Board. The Board would then have to approve the plan.

So, at this moment, there is no method of collecting data. We do not know what such data will reveal. If the data shows a disproportionate impact for minorities and special education students, a plan must be developed. We don't know what that plan will propose. The plan will then go to the Board. We don't know how the Board would act.

So, no, I am not clouding the truth behind an O'Malley policy. I am illustrating that the original poster of this thread was spreading hyperbolic and false information. I am sorry if that is contrary to your political agenda. But, given that reality is contrary to your political agenda in this case, I suggest you consider changing your agenda rather then attempting to change reality.

Item C is the key text. It second guesses the judgement of the school administrators that are on the ground, aware of the incidents and infractions they are evaluating, pressuring them to make disciplinary decisions they otherwise would not make by injecting the race card into disciplinary process.

Moreover, from the report link that you cut and pasted from the OP:

BE TIMELY AND OPEN
• A school system must conduct its disciplinary process in a
timely and open way.
• A school system should provide to the students’ representative
any document it intends to use at a hearing.
END DISPARATE IMPACT
• To the extent that the disciplinary process is shown to have
disproportionate impact on minority and/or special education
students, a school system must present a plan to this Board to
end such disparate impact.

PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
• When out-of-school suspension is imposed, a school system
must provide at least minimum educational services to the
student.

The sections in black make absolute sense. Bravo.

The section in red assumes that if the children of a given race are suspended at a greater rate than children of other races, that there must be some injustice perpetrated by the school administrators, and that the school system must be pressured to come up with a plan to, on very short order (1-3 years) either not suspend children of that race as much, or to equally suspend children of other races. Plain and simple, the very thought of pressuring school systems to inject racial considerations into their disciplinary decisions is itself RACIST. On that there is no question.

How trite to focus on the DailyCaller, when 2/3 of the reference materials made available in the original message clearly referred the reader to information published on Maryland State government web sites, not the least of which was the report itself (which you so aptly regurgitated through a copy and paste).

But, I guess when you rely on extracting only those portions of a post that convenience your point, that is to be expected.

Fortunately as has been seen throughout this thread, the DCUM community is, for the greater part, too smart to fall for that. I will save you some trouble and simply say that you do your visitors an injustice by clouding the truth behind this bad O'Malley policy.

The original poster of this thread is spreading disinformation. That poster has obviously not read the report to which the poster linked in the original post. Since that poster did not take the trouble to read the report, I will save that poster and other posters a lot of trouble. Here is the key language regarding racial discrepancy in suspensions:

.21 Reducing and Eliminating Disproportionate Impact
A. The Department shall develop a method to analyze local school system discipline
data to determine whether there is a disproportionate impact on minority students.
B. The Department may use the discrepancy model to assess the impact of discipline on
special education students.
C. If the Department identifies a school’s discipline process as having a
disproportionate impact on minority or special education students, the local school system
shall prepare and present to the State Board a plan to reduce the disproportionate impact
within 1 year and eliminate it within 3 years.
D. The local school system will report annually its progress to the State Board.

This is the very last paragraph in the report at:

http://msde.state.md.us/School_Discipline_Report02272012.pdf

Notice that at this point the school system would only be required to study whether there is a disproportionate impact to minority and special education students. There is no requirement for a race-based system to be put in place. The original poster is completely wrong about that and has done the DCUM community a disservice by spreading misinformation. But, I guess if you rely on the Daily Caller, that is to be expected.

I have a question...

How are they to determine who falls into which category? Are they to go look at what parents designated on some form or are they going to make best guess base on phenotype? I know many people whose "race" is ambiguous and can't be determined by looks..

This seems surreal...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"it means that those sweet oriental kids are going to have to be suspended and expelled from schools at a rate that is equal to the rate that blacks are suspended, expelled, and otherwise punished regardless of what the reality is in the school system."

Just for your information - people aren't oriental. Rugs are oriental. People are Asian.

The word ‘Oriental’ is not offensive. It is used all over the Far East and to me has always conjured up postive connotations. It is a wonderful word and it would be a shame to lose it from the language.

Asia has many races and sub-races who are distinct from each other! Arabs, Persians, Caucasians, Turks, South Asians (Indians & Pakistanis & Indonesians), Malay (who are more similar to Polynesians or Australian Aboriginals), and ORIENTALS aka far-East-Asians who are racially “different” than the above mentioned Asian groups. Asian is too broad since the Asian Continent is so huge and has so many races as discussed above.

A group somewhere decided to declare it as offensive for reasons best known to themselves; perhaps it gives them (ie. you) a false sense of superiority.

Now - back to the subject at hand.

Correction Arabs, persians, Turks are not Asian... They have always fallen under Caucasion/White... Even many Hispanics used to be considered white on census forms.

The origin of this thread is an article in The Daily Caller.

The Daily Caller is a web site started a couple of years ago by Tucker Carlson and is even loonier than Fox News.

On the range of credibility, where 10 is highly credible and 0 is utter bullshit, The Daily Caller ranks somewhere around a negative 6.