real racism

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Nice psycho-babble from the man with his ass in his hat. Pity it has NOTHING to do with the FACTS of the case.

The test scores pointed towards a problem among a group of kids....all of whom were black. Thr principal's reaction was incorrect...I would have just set up tutoral programs and and sent letters to the kid's parents requesting mandatory attendance.....but the reaction was without intended malice towards white kids.

Like I said before, where was the protest from the School Board, the State, the PTA when this action by the principal was first introduced? Are they slow to catch on, or just having an axe to grind and waited for an opportunity to grind it? When all is said and done the principal gave them the opportunity, and the lunch brunch is disbanded. Jokers like you have a "win"...whatever that means. Now maybe some better system will be implemented to address the problem.

This of course correlates into all of the other kids doing exceptionally well - HUH.
I guess the school only had Black kids with a learning problem.

Pity you have to guess as to what's going on..and you STILL got it ass backwards, Bravo.

Bottom line: your bigoted little ass is just burning to label this incident a blatant case of reverse racsim....but as the chronology of the post shows, that was not the case. Now you're so frustrated, you'll just regurgitate your BS in stubborn defiance.

"Bravo", indeed. You're done.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Pity you have to guess as to what's going on..and you STILL got it ass backwards, Bravo.

Bottom line: your bigoted little ass is just burning to label this incident a blatant case of reverse racsim....but as the chronology of the post shows, that was not the case. Now you're so frustrated, you'll just regurgitate your BS in stubborn defiance.

"Bravo", indeed. You're done.

So instead of attempting to refute what I presented, all you can do is attack the poster.

Say good night gracie.

 

[Timshel]

How the hell does one identify someones race by their faith..????
Are people of the Jewish faith all White...

French, and Spanish are Black ??? wtf?

Dressed alike and just by sight,
Can you tell a Somalian from a Nigerian?
How about a Jamaican from a Haitian or a Kenyan?
Maybe you can tell a Mexican from an Argentinian...
A Russian from a Frenchmen?
A Serbian from a Brit?

We can set up a little test if you like....

Whats your point?
How can you walk and chew gum at the same time ?

You seem to have completely missed his point. He was saying that culture and race are different concepts. But for black Americans the distinction is small. Economics explains why.

There are not many Kenyan Americans clamoring for their own cultural products. Because demand is so small, no niche market has developed for Kenyan culture. The black American culture then overwhelms the Kenyans and folds them in over time. The Kenyan culture seekers are also drawn to the black American culture because they are largely classed that way by whites and the mainstream market. As I said before, we tag them with that identity and they celebrate it. Racist bastards!

If the Kenyans get enough numbers they could have their own beauty pageants. Without that, they will more than likely settle on the black beauty pageant, for obvious reasons.

What you are calling for basically will create an arbitrary barrier to entry in the culture markets. Whites will then overwhelm the black culture market leaving more consumers unfulfilled. That would not be so bad if we folded them in completely, but we have not (at least not fully) and we are not likely to in the immediate future. With that being true it just leaves blacks on the outside, watching our party, with no right to have their own.

 

[NOVA]

You seem to have completely missed his point. He was saying that culture and race are different concepts. But for black Americans the distinction is small. Economics explains why. We have small pockets of others for sure...very small.


No, I haven't missed the point... the distinction is smaller for American Blacks because just about the entire black population has the very same background...if 25% of the black population was Jamican and 15% was from Morocco and 15% from Algeria or Trinadad, the distinctions would be more easily seen and recognized....as it is, there is very little ethnic diversity in black Americans....its got nothing to do with economics or bigotry....its biological fact....




.

.

 

[NOVA]

Nice psycho-babble from the man with his ass in his hat. Pity it has NOTHING to do with the FACTS of the case.

The test scores pointed towards a problem among a group of kids....all of whom were black. Thr principal's reaction was incorrect...I would have just set up tutoral programs and and sent letters to the kid's parents requesting mandatory attendance.....but the reaction was without intended malice towards white kids.

Like I said before, where was the protest from the School Board, the State, the PTA when this action by the principal was first introduced? Are they slow to catch on, or just having an axe to grind and waited for an opportunity to grind it? When all is said and done the principal gave them the opportunity, and the lunch brunch is disbanded. Jokers like you have a "win"...whatever that means. Now maybe some better system will be implemented to address the problem.

The irrelevant strawman crap just continues, over and over and over, ad nauseam...
It was strawman bullshit the first time and remains strawman bullshit the one hundredth time.

 

[Timshel]

Again, they were separated BASED ON THE TEST SCORES...NOT SOLELY ON RACE. This was NOT a willy-nilly "let's just separate the black kids for the hell of it" scenario. Why do YOU insist upon revising the chain of events as they were reported?

Did the group include white kids that were failing? Did the group exclude black kids that were not failing? Maybe my understanding of what happened is in error, but if the answer to both is no then they did not separate them based on test scores but race. Their pretext may have been that the black kids were failing as a whole. It does not matter because that is not a measure of the individual but the group.

We agree that the principal's approach was wrong...and I dare say it doesn't matter what side of the Mason-Dixon line one is on to see that, or to be suspicious of his motives. But as the Board & State ruled, what he did was NOT with ill intentions, just a bad move that could and should have been handled differently.

Your comparison to the prom incident is erroneous, because in that incident there was INTENTIONAL bias on part of the principle, who personally saw nothing wrong with his actions despite (to my knowledge) no impending cause for alarm from the students themselves.

As I said, the intentions don't matter to me. For instance, the principal who segregated the prom could have argued that his intent was that minority students be able to elect their own king and queen. So he segregated them because they would not have had much influence on those choices when grouped into the whole of the student body. He might argue that the white kids, as a whole, can't dance and needed instruction as a group separately. He could have sincerely intended those (the second one is a bit of a joke, but somewhat similar to this lunch bunch) or some other reason. I would still be against it.

To allow the well intentioned segregation and not the bad, I have to know his motive, which is not usually easy to determine with any certainty. It would be too easy to hide behind some specious reason for segregation.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pity you have to guess as to what's going on..and you STILL got it ass backwards, Bravo.

Bottom line: your bigoted little ass is just burning to label this incident a blatant case of reverse racsim....but as the chronology of the post shows, that was not the case. Now you're so frustrated, you'll just regurgitate your BS in stubborn defiance.

"Bravo", indeed. You're done.

So instead of attempting to refute what I presented, all you can do is attack the poster.

Say good night gracie.

Actually as the post shows, I was responding to Asshat and you threw in your 2 cents...which was so stupid I mistook you for Bravo.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=654243&postcount=461

Being that you two dummies are interchangeable to a degree, the response is the same. What you stated was already discussed and settled....your's or Bravo's insipid stubborness and stalling BS non-withstanding. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Again, they were separated BASED ON THE TEST SCORES...NOT SOLELY ON RACE. This was NOT a willy-nilly "let's just separate the black kids for the hell of it" scenario. Why do YOU insist upon revising the chain of events as they were reported?

Did the group include white kids that were failing? No, the "white" kids weren't failing as a group in comparison to the black kids according to the test scores. Did the group exclude black kids that were not failing? Why in the hell would you include kids who weren't failing with a group that is failing an needs remedial work? Your question makes no sense. Maybe my understanding of what happened is in error, but if the answer to both is no then they did not separate them based on test scores but race. Their pretext may have been that the black kids were failing as a whole. It does not matter because that is not a measure of the individual but the group.

As I've demonstrated, your questions are basically irrelevent and somewhat absurd, so your conclusion is therefore not worth consideration.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
We agree that the principal's approach was wrong...and I dare say it doesn't matter what side of the Mason-Dixon line one is on to see that, or to be suspicious of his motives. But as the Board & State ruled, what he did was NOT with ill intentions, just a bad move that could and should have been handled differently.

Your comparison to the prom incident is erroneous, because in that incident there was INTENTIONAL bias on part of the principle, who personally saw nothing wrong with his actions despite (to my knowledge) no impending cause for alarm from the students themselves.

As I said, the intentions don't matter to me. It should, because as I pointed out to others, intent can mean the difference between degrees of sentencing in a court of law. I find it fascinating how folk INTENT on labeling this incident as a clear cut case of reverse racism being excused by liberals try like hell to pretend "intent" doesn't matter. Fortunately, the final official ruling let cooler, rational and logical heads prevail. For instance, the principal who segregated the prom could have argued that his intent was that minority students be able to elect their own king and queen. So he segregated them because they would not have had much influence on those choices when grouped into the whole of the student body. He might argue that the white kids, as a whole, can't dance and needed instruction as a group separately. He could have sincerely intended those (the second one is a bit of a joke, but somewhat similar to this lunch bunch) or some other reason. I would still be against it.

Ahhh, but "would have, might have, could have" wasn't the case. In that case, he made his intentions for his actions quite clear, which was his personal bias NOT based on any real threat of discourse or chaos from the students. A matter of fact & history that DOES NOT support your comparison to the Ann Arbor situation.

To allow the well intentioned segregation and not the bad, I have to know his motive, which is not usually easy to determine with any certainty. It would be too easy to hide behind some specious reason for segregation.

Once again, the final ruling DID NOT ALLOW segregation and it DID NOT state that the principal was trying to implement "well intentioned segregation"....they said that though his intentions were good (to address/reaffirm academically poor black kids images of real life role models), he broke the law with his method. No one was "hiding" behind anything...and that is what seems to trouble you and others on this thread...YOU CANNOT FACTUALLY OR LOGICALLY PROVE THAT THE PRINCIPAL WAS INTENTIONALLY PRACTICING RACISM. What you want to believe is another matter, but as I've demonstrated above, belief is not always logical.

We've done this dance, String. No sense in repeating steps.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The irrelevant strawman crap just continues, over and over and over, ad nauseam...
It was strawman bullshit the first time and remains strawman bullshit the one hundredth time.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=654237&postcount=460

I leave our intellectually impotent Bravo to rant and wail in frustrated defeat....destined to pant himself on the back in delusional bravado and self aggrandizement. "Bravo", indeed.

 

[Timshel]

No, the "white" kids weren't failing as a group in comparison to the black kids according to the test scores. Why in the hell would you include kids who weren't failing with a group that is failing an needs remedial work? Your question makes no sense.

As I've demonstrated, your questions are basically irrelevent and somewhat absurd, so your conclusion is therefore not worth consideration.

The questions show that the division of the students was based on race. Dividing them based on test scores means taking all the failing kids and/or only the failing kids. Dividing them based on race is taking all the black kids and/or only the black kids.

I am not going to respond anymore on this since you insist on being pig headed and ignoring the ACTUAL methods of categorization.

It should, because as I pointed out to others, intent can mean the difference between degrees of sentencing in a court of law.

That's assuming guilt has already been established. Yes, it should inform punishment if it can be proven. But, you are demanding a certain motive before declaring guilt. Motive is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it would be nearly impossible to hang the decision of guilt/innocence on motive alone. If you steal a car, claiming you did it for a good cause is not likely to get you off. Short of self defense, motive is only going to be used in sentencing. The primary question for a court to determine, is usually whether the person committed a crime, not whether he committed a crime for bad reasons.

I find it fascinating how folk INTENT on labeling this incident as a clear cut case of reverse racism being excused by liberals try like hell to pretend "intent" doesn't matter. Fortunately, the final official ruling let cooler, rational and logical heads prevail.

How do you figure? I am not calling for the guys head. Tell him he did wrong and let him go about his business. I don't see any reason to believe more is justified. That is what they did. They are fully in agreement with me that the action violated state law and school board policy.

Ahhh, but "would have, might have, could have" wasn't the case. In that case, he made his intentions for his actions quite clear, which was his personal bias NOT based on any real threat of discourse or chaos from the students. A matter of fact & history that DOES NOT support your comparison to the Ann Arbor situation.

So you would have been content if the intentionally specious reasons I gave were his defense? LOL, okay.

Once again, the final ruling DID NOT ALLOW segregation and it DID NOT state that the principal was trying to implement "well intentioned segregation"....they said that though his intentions were good (to address/reaffirm academically poor black kids images of real life role models), he broke the law with his method. No one was "hiding" behind anything...and that is what seems to trouble you and others on this thread...YOU CANNOT FACTUALLY OR LOGICALLY PROVE THAT THE PRINCIPAL WAS INTENTIONALLY PRACTICING RACISM. What you want to believe is another matter, but as I've demonstrated above, belief is not always logical.

I have stated several times that I take him at his word.

We've done this dance, String. No sense in repeating steps.

I don't know, I think we may be in full agreement, except on the categorization thing. I don't see any reason to doubt the principals intentions were what he stated. I have not really looked for reasons to doubt him, because as long as they stopped it, then I have little concern. There does not seem to be any reason to believe any serious harm was done either, which would be another requirment before I would support harsher punishment.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Actually as the post shows, I was responding to Asshat and you threw in your 2 cents...which was so stupid I mistook you for Bravo.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=654243&postcount=461

Being that you two dummies are interchangeable to a degree, the response is the same. What you stated was already discussed and settled....your's or Bravo's insipid stubborness and stalling BS non-withstanding. Carry on.

And here you have another opportunity to refute what was posted; but instead you continue to attack the messenger, instead of defending your side.

You're done; say good-night Gracie.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Like I said before, where was the protest from the School Board, the State, the PTA when this action by the principal was first introduced? Are they slow to catch on, or just having an axe to grind and waited for an opportunity to grind it? .

Where were they? Most statist leftist administrative wonks are fine with discrminating against white people. They feel it's a remedy for past injustice.

How racial discrimination fights racial discrimination is beyond me, but regardless of that, this is what leftists believe.

 

[NOVA]

You seem to have completely missed his point. He was saying that culture and race are different concepts. But for black Americans the distinction is small. Economics explains why.

There are not many Kenyan Americans clamoring for their own cultural products. Because demand is so small, no niche market has developed for Kenyan culture. The black American culture then overwhelms the Kenyans and folds them in over time. The Kenyan culture seekers are also drawn to the black American culture because they are largely classed that way by whites and the mainstream market. As I said before, we tag them with that identity and they celebrate it. Racist bastards!

If the Kenyans get enough numbers they could have their own beauty pageants. Without that, they will more than likely settle on the black beauty pageant, for obvious reasons.

What you are calling for basically will create an arbitrary barrier to entry in the culture markets. Whites will then overwhelm the black culture market leaving more consumers unfulfilled. That would not be so bad if we folded them in completely, but we have not (at least not fully) and we are not likely to in the immediate future. With that being true it just leaves blacks on the outside, watching our party, with no right to have their own.

What is it you think I'm calling for?
Other than placing less emphasis on being black and more on being American...and that goes for Italian Americans and Spanish Americans and French Americans, and Polish Americans...

Other ethnic groups may celebrate their cultures to a degree but all have a duty to assimilated into the American culture.

It seems, some make a conscious effort, even going to extremes, to not assimilate into being an "American first"....
Torturing the language, until they sound like freakin' idiots, refusing the free education that will get them jobs and an income for their familys wellbeing...

This ethnic bigotry isn't unique to just the US..Its all over and is causing problems in various countrys worldwide....from wearing Burkas, to demanding Sharia Law, honor killing, to ignoring immigration laws, demanding we adjust to their languages, etc. and demanding the adopted country change values to suit theirs...

Personally, I say...screw 'em!

 

[christiefan915]

TC, it is a fact that they separated the students (singled out) based on race to determine whether they were failing as a group. There is no debate on that. You acknowledge it, but strangely ignore it.

It should not have been done. I doubt the principal had any ill intent, but if he were white and say in the south I might be more skeptical concerning his intents. But I don't really care what his intentions were because this should not be tolerated. Otherwise, you are going to have to prove ill intent when a white southern principal decides to have separate proms or some such nonsense. Besides the discrimination issues, it's just a bad approach to individual student needs. A failing student is a failing student, regardless of how well others of their race are doing.

I'm not certain about this. In our district there's standardized testing for all, then after the results are in, the poor performers are selected for additional help. That's when the race or ethnicity is actually evident.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, the "white" kids weren't failing as a group in comparison to the black kids according to the test scores. Why in the hell would you include kids who weren't failing with a group that is failing an needs remedial work? Your question makes no sense.

As I've demonstrated, your questions are basically irrelevent and somewhat absurd, so your conclusion is therefore not worth consideration.

The questions show that the division of the students was based on race. Dividing them based on test scores means taking all the failing kids and/or only the failing kids. Dividing them based on race is taking all the black kids and/or only the black kids.

Ahhh, but if the black kids are failing 'en masse' as opposed to just part of the general population, that would indicate a common problem that would have to be addressed. How that problem was addressed created a new problem...and I've addressed all that in detail.

I am not going to respond anymore on this since you insist on being pig headed and ignoring the ACTUAL methods of categorization.

Spare me your bullhorn and BS, String. I noticed how you ignored my example that put your earlier assertion to rest. Seems you just can't concede a point that interferes with your beliefs, you you just keep repeating the SOS in various forms while ignoring how they are logically deconstructed. In short, you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It should, because as I pointed out to others, intent can mean the difference between degrees of sentencing in a court of law.

That's assuming guilt has already been established. WRONG. ESTABLISHING INTENT IS PART OF THE TRIAL PROCESS, AND IS REQUIRED OF BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. REMEMBER, IN AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM, ONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY., it should inform punishment if it can be proven. But, you are demanding a certain motive before declaring guilt. Motive is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it would be nearly impossible to hang the decision of guilt/innocence on motive alone. If you steal a car, claiming you did it for a good cause is not likely to get you off. Short of self defense, motive is only going to be used in sentencing. The primary question for a court to determine, is usually whether the person committed a crime, not whether he committed a crime for bad reasons.

WRONG AGAIN. Your flawed analogy is based upon your incorrect application to the wrong example. Being caught stealing a car requires proving if the accused did indeed steal the car, NOT his intentions. Extenuating or exceptional circumstances come into play AFTER it's been established that the accused did indeed steal said car. Proving INTENT comes up in such cases as to what degree of murder is being charged, and if the prosecution can convict based on evidence regarding intent, or the defense can change the degree of conviction via intent (murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I find it fascinating how folk INTENT on labeling this incident as a clear cut case of reverse racism being excused by liberals try like hell to pretend "intent" doesn't matter. Fortunately, the final official ruling let cooler, rational and logical heads prevail.

How do you figure? I am not calling for the guys head. Tell him he did wrong and let him go about his business. I don't see any reason to believe more is justified. That is what they did. They are fully in agreement with me that the action violated state law and school board policy.

Not quite....you are STILL trying to state that the very creation of the lunch brunch was "racist" by it's very design. As I've logically demonstrated, that is not the case. It's the fine details that you want to have sway with...but you don't have a logical foot to stand on. The final ruling DOES NOT support your displayed contentions 100%....THAT is why you keep repeating yourself, and why you ignore the facts and logic that just won't support your assertions and contentions. I never said you were calling for the man's head but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details when one reads your statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, but "would have, might have, could have" wasn't the case. In that case, he made his intentions for his actions quite clear, which was his personal bias NOT based on any real threat of discourse or chaos from the students. A matter of fact & history that DOES NOT support your comparison to the Ann Arbor situation.

So you would have been content if the intentionally specious reasons I gave were his defense? LOL, okay.

No, my condescendingly chuckling friend, I just pointed out that your comparison was wrong, given the circumstances and the FACTS of each separate case. Rather than concede that small point, you invent another question to detract from your error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, the final ruling DID NOT ALLOW segregation and it DID NOT state that the principal was trying to implement "well intentioned segregation"....they said that though his intentions were good (to address/reaffirm academically poor black kids images of real life role models), he broke the law with his method. No one was "hiding" behind anything...and that is what seems to trouble you and others on this thread...YOU CANNOT FACTUALLY OR LOGICALLY PROVE THAT THE PRINCIPAL WAS INTENTIONALLY PRACTICING RACISM. What you want to believe is another matter, but as I've demonstrated above, belief is not always logical.

I have stated several times that I take him at his word.


Baloney....you continually try to insert your personal beliefs into what has transpired. And as I've stated above, the evidence and final ruling DO NOT support parts of your assertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
We've done this dance, String. No sense in repeating steps.

I don't know, I think we may be in full agreement, except on the categorization thing. I don't see any reason to doubt the principals intentions were what he stated. I have not really looked for reasons to doubt him, because as long as they stopped it, then I have little concern. There does not seem to be any reason to believe any serious harm was done either, which would be another requirment before I would support harsher punishment.

We're NOT in full agreement...and I suspect we never will be, as the chronology of the posts demonstrates. I'm going to leave it at that and move on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually as the post shows, I was responding to Asshat and you threw in your 2 cents...which was so stupid I mistook you for Bravo.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...&postcount=461

Being that you two dummies are interchangeable to a degree, the response is the same. What you stated was already discussed and settled....your's or Bravo's insipid stubborness and stalling BS non-withstanding. Carry on.

And here you have another opportunity to refute what was posted; but instead you continue to attack the messenger, instead of defending your side.

You're done; say good-night Gracie.

Once again, Freedumb doesn't have the intelligence to create his own ending, so he mimicks mine.

Small wonder why I call these jokers parrots.

Someone clue Freedumb in.....All the previous responses of mine point to the FACT that test scores indicated that the black kids were failing 'en masse', and NOT just a regular correlation with the entire student body. The commonality was what triggered the principal's action....and as I've stated time and again, he should have handled better. The final ruling was that the man had good intentions, but broke the law with his actions. Why it took everyone so long to get riled up has yet to be explained. But I'm satisfied with the school board ruling....what will be done to help the kids from this point on has yet to be seen.

But Freedumb isn't interested in that, he's just interested in catching the "liberals" in an act of hypocrisy and reverse discrimination. He and others will just ignore the facts regarding the final ruling and squawk their prejudiced assertion like the willfully ignorant neocon parrots they are. So be it. Let's just watch his final delusional accusations, lies and bluffs.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Where were they? Most statist leftist administrative wonks are fine with discrminating against white people. They feel it's a remedy for past injustice.

How racial discrimination fights racial discrimination is beyond me, but regardless of that, this is what leftists believe.

So sayeth the man with his ass in his hat.

So you include the PTA in your rant, genius? Because the parents sure as hell were aware of this group at the inception of this group...yet they waiting until their kids bitched about a field trip to protest?

Your assinine racist babbling aside, you seem incapable of using an eighth of the brain that God gave you to apply cognitive reasoning to all information available....and instead opt for ignoring reality for your revisionist viewpoint.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Once again, Freedumb doesn't have the intelligence to create his own ending, so he mimicks mine.

Small wonder why I call these jokers parrots.

Someone clue Freedumb in.....All the previous responses of mine point to the FACT that test scores indicated that the black kids were failing 'en masse', and NOT just a regular correlation with the entire student body. The commonality was what triggered the principal's action....and as I've stated time and again, he should have handled better. The final ruling was that the man had good intentions, but broke the law with his actions. Why it took everyone so long to get riled up has yet to be explained. But I'm satisfied with the school board ruling....what will be done to help the kids from this point on has yet to be seen.

But Freedumb isn't interested in that, he's just interested in catching the "liberals" in an act of hypocrisy and reverse discrimination. He and others will just ignore the facts regarding the final ruling and squawk their prejudiced assertion like the willfully ignorant neocon parrots they are. So be it. Let's just watch his final delusional accusations, lies and bluffs.

So sayeth the man with the stick up his butt.

And that's the proof that sissie has nothing at all.
He had two opportunities to refute what was posted; but instead, all he did was bluster and bluff.

I guess we're done here; but I'll let sissie come back with his usual asinine retorts.
Go ahead, sissie.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by RStringfield
TC, it is a fact that they separated the students (singled out) based on race to determine whether they were failing as a group. There is no debate on that. You acknowledge it, but strangely ignore it.

It should not have been done. I doubt the principal had any ill intent, but if he were white and say in the south I might be more skeptical concerning his intents. But I don't really care what his intentions were because this should not be tolerated. Otherwise, you are going to have to prove ill intent when a white southern principal decides to have separate proms or some such nonsense. Besides the discrimination issues, it's just a bad approach to individual student needs. A failing student is a failing student, regardless of how well others of their race are doing.

I'm not certain about this. In our district there's standardized testing for all, then after the results are in, the poor performers are selected for additional help. That's when the race or ethnicity is actually evident.

I've explained this to all in several ways....and used the example of when it was discovered that boys score lower than girls on math tests....I don't recall cries of reverse mysogyny, do you? But as it seems, our friends here just don't want to accept these things.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, Freedumb doesn't have the intelligence to create his own ending, so he mimicks mine.

Small wonder why I call these jokers parrots.

Someone clue Freedumb in.....All the previous responses of mine point to the FACT that test scores indicated that the black kids were failing 'en masse', and NOT just a regular correlation with the entire student body. The commonality was what triggered the principal's action....and as I've stated time and again, he should have handled better. The final ruling was that the man had good intentions, but broke the law with his actions. Why it took everyone so long to get riled up has yet to be explained. But I'm satisfied with the school board ruling....what will be done to help the kids from this point on has yet to be seen.

But Freedumb isn't interested in that, he's just interested in catching the "liberals" in an act of hypocrisy and reverse discrimination. He and others will just ignore the facts regarding the final ruling and squawk their prejudiced assertion like the willfully ignorant neocon parrots they are. So be it. Let's just watch his final delusional accusations, lies and bluffs.

So sayeth the man with the stick up his butt.

Just like I predicted...I struck a nerve, so Freedumb lashes out like with his childish mentality by STILL mimicking me.

And that's the proof that sissie (Freedumb was caught YEARS ago mispelling this grade school taunt....so now it's his badge of honor...Freedubmb is now either telling us he pissed his pants or he thinks I'm his little sister.) has nothing at all.
He had two opportunities to refute what was posted; but instead, all he did was bluster and bluff.

Obviously, Freedumb either cannot comprehend what was posted above or is just stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it.....a trait Freedumb believes is clever

I guess we're done here; but I'll let sissie (Freedumb's badge of honor...the poor fool )come back with his usual asinine retorts.
Go ahead, sissie.

See above responses. Freedumb has earned his nickname....I leave him to do exactly what I predicted earlier and repeat it ad nauseum.