Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m rezoned to Drew and not sure what to do next fall for K. I have to imagine that not everyone in Nauck feels the way that the vocal few on AEM do.

Not everyone in Nauck feels the same way a vocal few do. I'm a white resident and have never felt unwelcome at our civic association or neighborhood events or the school. People are jerks sometimes, especially on the internet. My child will be going to Drew next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m rezoned to Drew and not sure what to do next fall for K. I have to imagine that not everyone in Nauck feels the way that the vocal few on AEM do.

Not everyone in Nauck feels the same way a vocal few do. I'm a white resident and have never felt unwelcome at our civic association or neighborhood events or the school. People are jerks sometimes, especially on the internet. My child will be going to Drew next year.

Anonymous wrote:I’m rezoned to Drew and not sure what to do next fall for K. I have to imagine that not everyone in Nauck feels the way that the vocal few on AEM do.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t worry, the people who were posting about Drew and calling everyone racist for voicing a differing opinion don’t ACTUALLY send their kids there.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t worry, the people who were posting about Drew and calling everyone racist for voicing a differing opinion don’t ACTUALLY send their kids there.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. And current white residents of the neighborhood who have school-aged children offered their opinion and were told to shut up. Or actually, called racist for disagreeing what what "black and brown" people want. That is appalling. It's not whitesplaining if you are a white person who sends their kids to that school, to have an opinion on that school.


?????

Anonymous wrote:

Okay, but again, why not just take a minute to consider whether whiteness has anything to do with the system of higher education and how we assess merit and prestige? What does it cost you to think about that? Are you really that insulted to be called white? The comment was obnoxious but the point may be valid.

And why do you assume that the typically very liberal members of AEM haven’t spent much more than a minute pondering this? Many of them/us would be thrilled to have a legitimate discussion about these issues when it isn’t presented in a backhanded manner, dripping with disdain.

If it’s not ok to treat race as a flaw, then it’s not ok to treat race as a flaw. For the record, I’m not insulted to be called a woman either, but that doesn’t mean that I want to interact with someone who uses the word as an insult.

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate here, a lot of the "race-baiting" can also be seen as pushing UMC white folks (like me) to consider our implicit biases. A PP posted: "If a black child was dissuaded or incorrectly told they had to do something to take an AP class or whatever, it is because the child is black. Full stop." The implicit point in the post, leading to the PP's conclusion that such accusations would chill the teacher/counselor from giving good advice, is that the teacher/counselor had a valid reason and that it wasn't just because the child is black. But none of us know that for a fact as applied to any particular situation. If a black parent is saying that's the issue and the teacher is saying that's not the issue, why do we assume the black parent is wrong and the teacher is right? Why would we not consider that as a possibility? It's not considered polite to talk about race anymore among the white community, which is fine and dandy when it comes to no longer making gross generalizations about minorities/people of color, but it's also a convenient way to shut down points about things that white folks continue to do to preserve their own privilege.

In addition, a lot of the recent racially tinged discussion began with the infamous "whitesplaining" post during the boundary discussion. That post was largely correct. The historically black community around Drew had been asked what it wanted and said what it wanted. At the last minute, white outsiders to that community came in and said, no you don't understand THIS would be better for you. The proposal may have come from a good place, but it was absolutely contrary to what the community clearly said it wanted and it was billed as "what's best" for that community. Whitesplaining was a provocative way to put it, but that is in fact what was going on.

All that said, the political posts, from Parisa vs. Theo to whether charter schools are a good idea, are ridiculous and detract from real discussion of issues. I generally think less of everyone who posts on those threads because they have such poor reasoning skills. And the reason they have such poor reasoning skills is that they are never tested by having to defend their positions outside of the echo chamber. That's the real problem with all of this political correctness.

Okay, but again, why not just take a minute to consider whether whiteness has anything to do with the system of higher education and how we assess merit and prestige? What does it cost you to think about that? Are you really that insulted to be called white? The comment was obnoxious but the point may be valid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate here, a lot of the "race-baiting" can also be seen as pushing UMC white folks (like me) to consider our implicit biases. A PP posted: "If a black child was dissuaded or incorrectly told they had to do something to take an AP class or whatever, it is because the child is black. Full stop." The implicit point in the post, leading to the PP's conclusion that such accusations would chill the teacher/counselor from giving good advice, is that the teacher/counselor had a valid reason and that it wasn't just because the child is black. But none of us know that for a fact as applied to any particular situation. If a black parent is saying that's the issue and the teacher is saying that's not the issue, why do we assume the black parent is wrong and the teacher is right? Why would we not consider that as a possibility? It's not considered polite to talk about race anymore among the white community, which is fine and dandy when it comes to no longer making gross generalizations about minorities/people of color, but it's also a convenient way to shut down points about things that white folks continue to do to preserve their own privilege.

In addition, a lot of the recent racially tinged discussion began with the infamous "whitesplaining" post during the boundary discussion. That post was largely correct. The historically black community around Drew had been asked what it wanted and said what it wanted. At the last minute, white outsiders to that community came in and said, no you don't understand THIS would be better for you. The proposal may have come from a good place, but it was absolutely contrary to what the community clearly said it wanted and it was billed as "what's best" for that community. Whitesplaining was a provocative way to put it, but that is in fact what was going on.

All that said, the political posts, from Parisa vs. Theo to whether charter schools are a good idea, are ridiculous and detract from real discussion of issues. I generally think less of everyone who posts on those threads because they have such poor reasoning skills. And the reason they have such poor reasoning skills is that they are never tested by having to defend their positions outside of the echo chamber. That's the real problem with all of this political correctness.

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Okay, but again, why not just take a minute to consider whether whiteness has anything to do with the system of higher education and how we assess merit and prestige? What does it cost you to think about that? Are you really that insulted to be called white? The comment was obnoxious but the point may be valid.