• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

62 Years After Brown v. BOE, Court Orders Schools to Desegregate

Racism has been over in the USA for a long time,eh?

:lol:

Get back with us when and if the USA ever becomes a totally tolerant country

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen because we've got the Trump campaign going on right now.






A hundred years from now we may look back on this but I doubt that all of us will laugh.

Wait and see.
 
Last edited:
The southland, of course. Now, California, where segregation was never the law of the land, has more segregated schools than in most of the rest of the country.

Maybe blacks and whites don't want to go to school together, or at least maybe some don't.
Shouldn't that be their choice?



Some people in the South made a choice after the 1964 Civil Rights act became law and I believe that they they lost that argument.

In about 50 years the non-Hispanic White people in the USA will be outnumbered by the members of all of the minorities.

It will be interesting to see how they react to that.

:lol:

I predict that some of them won't be very happy judging by how some of them are acting right now.
 
Last edited:
That's much like Comcast merging with Time Warner. There's no room for competition. They'd be better off with two schools.
Not if they're all run by the same governing body.

The building is only a building
 
Some people in the South made a choice after the 1964 Civil Rights act became law and I believe that they they lost that argument.

In about 50 years the non-Hispanic White people in the USA will be outnumbered by the members of all of the minorities.

It will be interesting to see how they react to that.

:lol:

I predict that some of them won't be very happy judging by how some of them are acting right now.

Whites in the old south before the civil rights act decided that blacks wouldn't have a choice. Allowing parents, all parents regardless of race, to choose the school they will attend is pro choice. Segregation was anti choice.
 
Whites in the old south before the civil rights act decided that blacks wouldn't have a choice. Allowing parents, all parents regardless of race, to choose the school they will attend is pro choice. Segregation was anti choice.

Well then, we have never been pro-choice, still aren't. The school you attend is based largely on where you live.
 
No, we haven't, but it's time we started.

So, do we start bussing everyone then? And I mean everyone, because that's the only way you'll reach any sort of equity or fairness standard. You'll still be taking away choice.

Right now people have a choice of where to live, more than they have a choice of their color, race, what have you.

Not to mention practicality and economy.
 
Many of the black kids were far better dressed than I was, they all seemed to have $150 Jordans, expensive jackets, etc. I don't think that many of them were poor, they seemed better off than many of the white and Hispanic kids.
All the kids that rode my bus lived in roughly the same area, as the bus route picked up and dropped off kids from the same general neighborhood.
I just think they related to each other more than they did kids from other races, and that's why they chose to all sit in the back of the bus. I was friends with one black girl in particular, we'd talk in class, but once school was over, she'd go with the black kids and I'd go with the white and Hispanic kids.

What years??
 
If you let the blacks in, the school will suck?

Yeah, I think that's the fear, and there is some basis of truth in it:

These schools were found to be the most poverty-stricken, minority-segregated schools in the country, with more than 75 to 100 percent of Black and Latino students eligible for price-reduced lunch. This parameter is commonly used as an indicator of poverty.

These schools were also found to have offered fewer STEM courses and advanced placement, college-prep courses. About 48 percent of high-poverty schools offer AP courses, while 72 percent of low-poverty schools — with 0 to 25 percent of students on free, reduced lunches — offered these college-level courses.

These schools have higher rates of students unable to advance from the ninth grade, as well as more students who had been suspended or expelled. Five percent of students at low-poverty schools will received an out-of-school suspension, while 22 percent in high-poverty schools will be suspended more than once.

Public Schools Becoming More Racially Segregated: Report - NBC News

You live in California, right? What do you think would happen if the Santa Monica-Malibu School District combined with Inglewood and they started busing dark-pigminted hoi polloi into Snobsville? We got a clue from what happened when the Los Angeles Unified School District began busing kids from Watts into the San Fernando Valley more than forty years ago. Whites fled the district in droves to the point that it's only about 10% non-Hispanic white today.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think that's the fear, and there is some basis of truth in it:



You live in California, right? What do you think would happen if the Santa Monica-Malibu School District combined with Inglewood and they started busing dark-pigminted hoi polloi into Snobsville? We got a clue from what happened when the Los Angeles Unified School District began busing kids from Watts into the San Fernando Valley more than forty years ago. Whites fled the district in droves to the point that it's only about 10% non-Hispanic white today.

California is a blue state, Mississippi is a red state. I wouldn't be surprised if that fact plays a role in why Miss is being targeted for this.

Wealthy liberals reserve the right to preach about the merits of integration, while living completely segregated lives in white upper class enclaves. Marin County is home to some of the richest white liberals in the country, and wealthy white liberal residents have been fighting school integration since it was first proposed in 1960. Some of the most racially segregated schools in the country exist in Marin County today.
 
So, do we start bussing everyone then? And I mean everyone, because that's the only way you'll reach any sort of equity or fairness standard. You'll still be taking away choice.

Right now people have a choice of where to live, more than they have a choice of their color, race, what have you.

Not to mention practicality and economy.
No, you don't start bussing. You allow parents to choose any school they want to send their kids to. You allow the school to bus kids if they need to in order to have enough students.

The key is local control, free choice, and accountability to parents, not to some bureaucrat in Washington.
 
Yeah, I think that's the fear, and there is some basis of truth in it:



You live in California, right? What do you think would happen if the Santa Monica-Malibu School District combined with Inglewood and they started busing dark-pigminted hoi polloi into Snobsville? We got a clue from what happened when the Los Angeles Unified School District began busing kids from Watts into the San Fernando Valley more than forty years ago. Whites fled the district in droves to the point that it's only about 10% non-Hispanic white today.
Bussing was a failure specifically because it was a choice made by government. The government decided to buss kids from one school to another in order to achieve racial balance. It didn't work. What I'm suggesting is the government butt out of the issue and let the parents decide where to send their kids. It's all about choice and competition, the same things that work in the private sector.
 
Bussing was a failure specifically because it was a choice made by government. The government decided to buss kids from one school to another in order to achieve racial balance. It didn't work. What I'm suggesting is the government butt out of the issue and let the parents decide where to send their kids. It's all about choice and competition, the same things that work in the private sector.

If only it were that simple. As we saw in Los Angeles in the 1970s, many black parents chose to send their kids from schools in South Central Los Angeles to schools in the San Fernando Valley when half of the district's students were white. The white parents chose instead to move to Simi Valley or Thousand Oaks or put their kids into private schools rather than have their kids bused to Watts. In 1972, for example, Van Nuys High School was one of the "better" schools. Now it's 10% white and 79% of its students receive free or reduced-priced lunches. And when it came to choice, teachers fled in droves, too. So did middle-class blacks. Apparently, the black parents weren't too keen on having their kids attend school with kids straight from the ghetto, either, so that now 70% of the district is populated by Latinos, many of whom are what one might call "academically challenged," assuming they speak English.
 
Allowing parents, all parents regardless of race, to choose the school they will attend is pro choice.
Unless schools are totally independent of districts, it can't be done.
And then because of limits on the numbers of students which can be accepted, other problems will be created.
 
If only it were that simple. As we saw in Los Angeles in the 1970s, many black parents chose to send their kids from schools in South Central Los Angeles to schools in the San Fernando Valley when half of the district's students were white. The white parents chose instead to move to Simi Valley or Thousand Oaks or put their kids into private schools rather than have their kids bused to Watts. In 1972, for example, Van Nuys High School was one of the "better" schools. Now it's 10% white and 79% of its students receive free or reduced-priced lunches. And when it came to choice, teachers fled in droves, too. So did middle-class blacks. Apparently, the black parents weren't too keen on having their kids attend school with kids straight from the ghetto, either, so that now 70% of the district is populated by Latinos, many of whom are what one might call "academically challenged," assuming they speak English.

If they didn't want their kids bussed to Watts, then the kids shouldn't have been bussed to Watts. It should be the parent's choice, not the state's choice.
 
Unless schools are totally independent of districts, it can't be done.
And then because of limits on the numbers of students which can be accepted, other problems will be created.

Districts are just arbitrary boundaries. As it is now, you live in district A, you send your kids to school A, or you homeschool or spring for private tuition.

As for numbers, of course the best schools will have more students than they can accept. The way to solve that is to give the school the right to accept just so many, and put the rest on a waiting list.

Then, the schools (not the state or federal government) can set standards. If you want to go to school here, then you must have a GPA of so much, and you can only have so many infractions of the rules. If you can't live up to the standards of the best school, maybe second best will accept you.

Acceptance at a good school, then, would be based on the qualifications of the students, and not on whether the parents can afford to live where the poor can't.
 
Districts are just arbitrary boundaries.
Your reply does not refute what I stated.


As it is now, you live in district A, you send your kids to school A, or you homeschool or spring for private tuition.
Which is appropriate.


As for numbers, of course the best schools will have more students than they can accept. The way to solve that is to give the school the right to accept just so many, and put the rest on a waiting list.

Then, the schools (not the state or federal government) can set standards. If you want to go to school here, then you must have a GPA of so much, and you can only have so many infractions of the rules. If you can't live up to the standards of the best school, maybe second best will accept you.

Acceptance at a good school, then, would be based on the qualifications of the students, and not on whether the parents can afford to live where the poor can't.
Yes, I am aware of how that would work.
You create a system of achievement, not only for the schools but for the kids as well.


Like I said; Other problems will be created.
The students who achieve less will be attending schools which achieve less.
 
If they didn't want their kids bussed to Watts, then the kids shouldn't have been bussed to Watts. It should be the parent's choice, not the state's choice.

The point you're missing is middle and upper-class people don't want their kids attending school with a bunch of ghetto kids because they tend to be discipline problems and suffer academically. That's not due so much to the school as the fact that they're already behind the eight ball before they even enter school. Some of them can barely form a coherent sentence by the time they reach school age. (I'm not kidding.) So what do you do with those "disadvantaged" kids?
 
No, you don't start bussing. You allow parents to choose any school they want to send their kids to. You allow the school to bus kids if they need to in order to have enough students.

The key is local control, free choice, and accountability to parents, not to some bureaucrat in Washington.

Skipping over the fact that there was a good reason the schools serve those who live close to them. How the hell do you expect the folks from miles and miles away to send their kid over to the "good" high school? Part of the reason they live where they do is that they don't have the funds to live near the other HS.

And then what do you do if there's no room now at the better HS for the kids that actually live in the area?

You rob folks of choice and there no accountability.
 
Districts are just arbitrary boundaries. As it is now, you live in district A, you send your kids to school A, or you homeschool or spring for private tuition.

So let's say I bought a home in Beverly Hills and paid for the privilege of sending my kids to Beverly Hills schools, along with my property taxes that support those schools. Now parents in the sucky Los Angeles Unified School District want to send their kids to Beverly Hills. Explain, please, how that would work exactly.
 
So let's say I bought a home in Beverly Hills and paid for the privilege of sending my kids to Beverly Hills schools, along with my property taxes that support those schools. Now parents in the sucky Los Angeles Unified School District want to send their kids to Beverly Hills. Explain, please, how that would work exactly.

Well, some folks who can't pay for the privilege, or not easily, sacrifice to get a crappy hovel in the school's area. Lots of good parents do this. They sacrifice their own dreams to provide their children with opportunity. My daughter, she could have moved outside the area where the dollar stretches further, bought a nice place with plenty of land. But instead she and her husband chose a place with a postage stamp sized "yard" to be close to one of the best schools they could find.

Good parents shouldn't be on some waiting list for a school in their own area because the space is filled with folks bussed in from households that just don't give a damn.
 
Good parents shouldn't be on some waiting list for a school in their own area because the space is filled with folks bussed in from households that just don't give a damn.

I agree. That's another reason parents fled LA Unified. They were upset that they bought homes in the Valley thinking their kids would be able to attend neighborhood schools and then court-ordered busing entered the picture. And the question I have is why were schools in South Central "bad" while schools in the Valley "good," because they were all part of the same district run by a board of education with representation from each area the district served, hiring teachers from the same pool of educators with the same pay scales and benefits. Now the schools are almost uniformly "bad," i.e. overly crowded with high dropout and expulsion rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom