Anonymous wrote: My public high school is 5.5% black, my kid’s private school is 14%. But we all know this was a $hit stirring post not a reality based one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t come across such a refined critique of woke schools.

It all boils down to limousine liberal. It's still the best descriptor of the kind of person who believes that a 60k private is about inclusivity or lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing

My kid's $60k school is about putting her in the best circumstances to succeed, particularly after the train wreck the first couple years of high school were (dur to her own issues). Inclusivity never entered into the equation. I'll never apologize for that, or feel even one iota of remorse.

But, it's your second comparison that I'd like to explore - "lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing[.]" Is it your belief that living in an expensive house means that one *cannot* care about affordable housing? That is one truly cares about affordable housing, there is an upper limit to the value of their home? If so, what is it? That only people who live in an inexpensive home can care about affordable housing?

It's this kind or "intellectual" (and I am using the word in its loosest possible sense) incoherence that we've come to expect from someone who uses the term "limousine liberal."

When workforce sized housing is getting torn down and backfilled with McMansions, yes it is hypocritical to live in one while pretending to care about affordable housing. It's no different than driving a suburban while caring about this environment. Your individual action is meaningless, but the totality of individuals choosing the same action does have an impact

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a city where private schools proudly champion inclusivity and social justice, there’s an ironic twist: these values are nurtured within exclusive bubbles, far removed from the diverse realities of public schools. Parents preach the virtues of equity but often pay top dollar to avoid sending their children to public institutions—the very environments where their talent, privilege, and resources could have the most transformative impact. Instead, inclusivity becomes a brand, polished behind ivy-covered walls, while public schools, brimming with untapped potential, are left out of the equation. Is it inclusiveness we seek—or insulation?

OP, I don't get the point of your question. Is this supposed to be some philosophical debate on a slow day during the holidays?

I've had kids in DC private schools since about 2008, and still do. I couldn't care less if they are in a "bubble," but then, I don't "preach the virtues of equity," because I do not believe in equity, nor think it is a virtue.

You're painting all private school parents and schools with the same brush. You are speaking here about a subset.

And please name the private school in the DMV that has ivy-covered walls. I've yet to see it.

At least you're honest about it. We have a neighbor with a Sidwell bumper sticker and a BLM, no human is illegal, love lives here... yard sign.

These are not contradictory.

Opting out of public school is totally consistent with beliefs in non-discriminatory hiring in the workplace; beliefs that law enforcement officers should not engage in vigilante justice; beliefs that the value of a person does not turn on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

? Correct

Sure a lawn sign predicated on being against injustice and a bumper sticker from the most exclusive school in the area. Sure injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere, but that doesn't mean that little Timmy has to go to school with the poors

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t come across such a refined critique of woke schools.

It all boils down to limousine liberal. It's still the best descriptor of the kind of person who believes that a 60k private is about inclusivity or lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing

My kid's $60k school is about putting her in the best circumstances to succeed, particularly after the train wreck the first couple years of high school were (dur to her own issues). Inclusivity never entered into the equation. I'll never apologize for that, or feel even one iota of remorse.

But, it's your second comparison that I'd like to explore - "lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing[.]" Is it your belief that living in an expensive house means that one *cannot* care about affordable housing? That is one truly cares about affordable housing, there is an upper limit to the value of their home? If so, what is it? That only people who live in an inexpensive home can care about affordable housing?

It's this kind or "intellectual" (and I am using the word in its loosest possible sense) incoherence that we've come to expect from someone who uses the term "limousine liberal."

When workforce sized housing is getting torn down and backfilled with McMansions, yes it is hypocritical to live in one while pretending to care about affordable housing. It's no different than driving a suburban while caring about this environment. Your individual action is meaningless, but the totality of individuals choosing the same action does have an impact

So, where should we live?

Also, I am a hypocrite, but my individual action is meaningless?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gathering feedback on the thesis statement for your thought piece, OP?

It is as it ever was. The rich seek exclusive/exclusionary clubs, including schools. It used to be that the rich wanted everyone to know how exclusive, especially those outside the bubble.

The current fad is to pretend (1) they want their kids’ schools to be inclusive and diverse and (2) that those schools actually are inclusive and diverse. Neither is true.

Paradox? A better word is hypocrisy.

NP. I think having pro-diversity values helps reduce overt racism, even if the rich still act classist.

I'll settle for at least some benefit to society.

Especially because I think class-focused behavior is harder to change given the American assumption that wealth is earned.

So racism is bad, but classism is ok?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t come across such a refined critique of woke schools.

It all boils down to limousine liberal. It's still the best descriptor of the kind of person who believes that a 60k private is about inclusivity or lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing

My kid's $60k school is about putting her in the best circumstances to succeed, particularly after the train wreck the first couple years of high school were (dur to her own issues). Inclusivity never entered into the equation. I'll never apologize for that, or feel even one iota of remorse.

But, it's your second comparison that I'd like to explore - "lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing[.]" Is it your belief that living in an expensive house means that one *cannot* care about affordable housing? That is one truly cares about affordable housing, there is an upper limit to the value of their home? If so, what is it? That only people who live in an inexpensive home can care about affordable housing?

It's this kind or "intellectual" (and I am using the word in its loosest possible sense) incoherence that we've come to expect from someone who uses the term "limousine liberal."

When workforce sized housing is getting torn down and backfilled with McMansions, yes it is hypocritical to live in one while pretending to care about affordable housing. It's no different than driving a suburban while caring about this environment. Your individual action is meaningless, but the totality of individuals choosing the same action does have an impact

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gathering feedback on the thesis statement for your thought piece, OP?

It is as it ever was. The rich seek exclusive/exclusionary clubs, including schools. It used to be that the rich wanted everyone to know how exclusive, especially those outside the bubble.

The current fad is to pretend (1) they want their kids’ schools to be inclusive and diverse and (2) that those schools actually are inclusive and diverse. Neither is true.

Paradox? A better word is hypocrisy.

NP. I think having pro-diversity values helps reduce overt racism, even if the rich still act classist.

I'll settle for at least some benefit to society.

Especially because I think class-focused behavior is harder to change given the American assumption that wealth is earned.

Anonymous wrote:Gathering feedback on the thesis statement for your thought piece, OP?

It is as it ever was. The rich seek exclusive/exclusionary clubs, including schools. It used to be that the rich wanted everyone to know how exclusive, especially those outside the bubble.

The current fad is to pretend (1) they want their kids’ schools to be inclusive and diverse and (2) that those schools actually are inclusive and diverse. Neither is true.

Paradox? A better word is hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t come across such a refined critique of woke schools.

It all boils down to limousine liberal. It's still the best descriptor of the kind of person who believes that a 60k private is about inclusivity or lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t come across such a refined critique of woke schools.

It all boils down to limousine liberal. It's still the best descriptor of the kind of person who believes that a 60k private is about inclusivity or lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing

My kid's $60k school is about putting her in the best circumstances to succeed, particularly after the train wreck the first couple years of high school were (dur to her own issues). Inclusivity never entered into the equation. I'll never apologize for that, or feel even one iota of remorse.

But, it's your second comparison that I'd like to explore - "lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing[.]" Is it your belief that living in an expensive house means that one *cannot* care about affordable housing? That is one truly cares about affordable housing, there is an upper limit to the value of their home? If so, what is it? That only people who live in an inexpensive home can care about affordable housing?

It's this kind or "intellectual" (and I am using the word in its loosest possible sense) incoherence that we've come to expect from someone who uses the term "limousine liberal."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t come across such a refined critique of woke schools.

It all boils down to limousine liberal. It's still the best descriptor of the kind of person who believes that a 60k private is about inclusivity or lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing

Anonymous wrote:GDS alum pp and I also think that all institutions and communities have underlying and unexamined tensions. It’s not a unique feature. In some ways, “discovering” and wrestling with them is part of coming of age in any kind of social group. Then you go off and repeat the process in your profession, church, etc.

Many of the posters here are just over the top and very angry at a few small private schools, and they’re not compelling, but that can be true while the OP is still identifying a real issue.