Attorney General Eric Holder has a new crusade.He says that schools discriminate against blacks and Latinos when it comes to meting out discipline in public schools, and he wants it stopped.
The Justice Department and the Department of Education have issued new guidelines for disciplining students in public schools, and claim that their internal investigations show racial bias.
The wide-ranging series of guidelines issued today in essence threatens schools with strong action if they are seen as 'not adhering to standards of fairness and equity in student discipline.'
"In our investigations, we have found cases where African-American students were disciplined more harshly and more frequently because of their race than similarly situated white students," the Justice Department and Education Department said in the letter to school districts. "In short, racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem."
Could it maybe have something to do with a higher percentage of black students constituting major discipline problems perhaps? Nah, couldn't be. Must be racism.
According to government civil rights data collection from 2011-2012, black students make up 15% of the population of America's public schools. Yet they were more than three times as likely as white students students to get expelled or suspended.They made up more than a third of students suspended once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once and more than a third of students expelled. According to one study I saw, blacks were ten times more likely to get suspended or expelled than Asian students.
More than half of students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement were Hispanic or black, according to the data.Racism obviously. Although not in California or some other jurisdictions, where the huge Los Angeles Unified School District has a policy now of not suspending students for what's called 'willful defiance'..in other words, repeatedly disrupting class, creating a climate where learning is impossible and refusing to pay any attention to a teacher's efforts to stop it. This has now gone statewide with pending legislation, AB40, that's going to make it fairly difficult for a public school to suspend or expel any student. This too was largely sparked by complaints that black and Hispanic students are being 'suspended too often'.
There's teeth in the new policies too. For instance, in Brevard County Florida, where the public schools suspend black students about two-and-a-half times as often as its white students, the NAACP has filed a complaint against the school district and the Justice Department and The U.S. Department of Education are helping them proceed.
Holder said in a statement that he blames the high rates of black suspension and expulsion on "zero-tolerance" policies that too often inject the criminal justice system into school discipline. The zero tolerance policies he's talking about are mandated set penalties for things like truancy, drugs on campus, or carrying a weapon, and our attorney general thinks it's time that stopped.
It used to be that trouble makers guilty of multiple offenses were sent to a specific school set up for exactly that purpose and placed under stricter discipline to both benefit themselves and the other children who actually wanted to learn. That sort of common sense arrangement is a thing of the distant past.
While the new Obama guidelines are said to be exactly that, they're clearly a warning and will be taken as such by the schools. So if your child is assaulted, bullied or cheated out of the education you paid for by someone's else's activities in the classroom and the perpetrator just happens to be black or Hispanic, don't even bother complaining, even if you yourself are black or Hispanic, let alone white or Asian. Ditto if you're a teacher,especially in one of the large urban politically correct school districts.
Or to put it another way, is there a reason you haven't started homeschooling or put your kids in private school yet?
6 comments:
"The zero tolerance policies he's talking about are mandated set penalties for things like...carrying a weapon."
I'm confused. Don't guns make places safer? I mean, that's right-wing Fox News gospel right there. Why would you want to confiscate guns and disarm people who are just exercising their second amendment rights unless you're a godless liberal?
Oh wait. These people are black. I get it. Carry on, Rob.
Oh, you're back, Anonymous..and with another cute handle! It must take you hours to think of them..oh, and of course, to figure out a way bring Sarah Palin into it for no good reason.
I have a feeling you have a huge poster of her on the ceiling over your bed..not that you're hurting anyone with that, but just make sure you clean up things afterwards.
Now let's review..I wouldn't want you to remain confused here.
It was school board officials and administrators who set policies of zero tolerance for weapons in public schools, ...not me. Now, I realize you think I have awesome powers, but I swear I had nothing to do with it! Honest!
But if you want to imagine I psychically control all these people (who applied these policies regardless of race as far as I know) as a basis for calling me a ra-aa-cist, it doesn't hurt me one bit, although (just a hint, for your own good) it does make you come across as pretty comical and deranged to most people.MSNBC deranged. And I wouldn't want that, no!
Now, I admit I actually do like the idea of permitting guns on school campuses..but carried by responsible adults who are trained and authorized to do so, not some sweaty little gang banger with a stolen, illegal shooter. Imagine how many lives a couple of armed teachers could have saved at Columbine and Sandy Hook!
Well, OTOH, I'm sure you'd rather not. Doesn't really work with your politics.But if you can, just imagine..
You know, you complain I don't post your comments, and I confess, I flushed some real beauties and we both know why. Based on what I've been letting in lately, so does everybody else. No wonder you want to remain Anonymous.
But I see from inane stuff like this you're just confused and reaching out for help. And when I have the time and inclination, I'll do my best.
Oh,by the way, in view of all the extra attention I've been giving you lately,you could at least hit the tip jar. That would be the decent thing to do, no?
Have a great day.
Oh, one more thing. At the private school my kids attended, there were security guards. A couple of them (and some of the teachers) had military training, some of them in a certain foreign country.
And while they didn't flash any hardware or walk around strapped, there were definitely guns on that campus easily available to people who knew how to use them and who would have done whatever was necessary to save the children's lives.
I felt a lot more comfortable dropping my kids off at school there than I ever felt at the local public schools.
While not one to side with this administration on anything, I happen to agree that a zero tolerance policy is ridiculous. Every case should be seen independent of a rule and should be judged by the circumstances. Otherwise you also get little boys being suspended for eating a poptart into the shape of a gun.
As a special needs advocate these zero tolerance policies also come down inequitably on disability-designated students. One other point that is true is that African-American students are more often designated as "emotionally disturbed" rather than any of the other 13 categories of the IDEA.It is a fait accompli that this ED is the reason that African-american students act out other than any other cause, such a autism or ADHD. You also find in the poorer school districts that the African-American and Hispanic students do not get the same special needs attention that white students do get (It is surprising how in Mississippi, especially in the poorer mostly black districts there is such an absence of autism or LD as compared with the rest of the country.) They never do receive the educational and psychiatric support that is necessary for most of them and they do end up either leaving the system early or being that disruptive violent student. (This is not to say that many of these recalcitrant students aren't simply thugs, having nothing to do with a developmental or learning disability).
The reality is that schools have already decided to stop prosecuting and dealing with thuggish behavior in any meaningful way long before these regulations have come out. It is well established that when an African-american child gets into trouble the first thing the parent screams is racism (dad was an 8th grade social studies teacher and had to deal with this crap on a regular basis), so the schools tend to do very little except in the cases when a teacher may be hurt since they don't want to face the wrath of the Unions.
Not to get all Brer Rabbit on you, but the reason I don't use (and don't need to use) ad hominem attacks and stick to logic is because I know you have absolutely no argument and don't want to be shown up as someone whose only skill is to parrot back the weak logic you hear on talk radio all day.
You use the 'he said mean things' argument, but you don't have to prove it to your readers so I guess you think you're doing a bang up job. (By the way, it doesn't help to accuse someone of ad hominem attacks and then try and insult them with adolescent masturbation jokes.
But when you don't post, then I know that I've got under your skin. And I don't have to use any crude imagery like you did in your response.
I looked at your posts around the time of Sandy Hook and you're a gun rights absolutist. Which is commendable, I suppose. Consistency is the hobglobin of small minds, as the saying goes. ANY restriction on guns is a slippery slope towards gun confiscation, so there must be no restriction at all. Okay then. So what to make of your new thoughts about students bringing handguns to school? Your logic dictates that the new Rob is a communist or something who wants to confiscate guns.
I'd actually be fascinated in hearing a real response and argument to that. After all, I believe in shades of gray and maybe upon further reflection you will too.
If this really bothered you, and if you wanted to use your blog to foster debate, maybe you consider having people register to an unmoderated comment site. I've never seen another blogger so scared of being proven wrong (and for good reason) than you.
Oh, while I'm here. I've been reading about Chris Christie. Not on Fox, however, which curiously refuses to talk about it (must be something to do with Ailes being a Christie supporter). I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he knew nothing about this bridge scandal. And unless someone proves otherwise, I think his hands are clean. BUT. If it turns out he knew something, it would be interesting to see your take on it. The hyperventilating that would occur if Obama did something like this would melt the Arctic. I can only imagine you would give Christie equal treatment.
PS Sorry about the long post (I type quickly). But this is obviously a comment you won't post, so just consider it a private email. Cheers.
My goodness, Anonymous! I have to give you credit for sheer unmitigated gall.
You stick to 'fact' and never use ad hominem attacks???
All you did was post some utter, non-factual nonsense and accuse me of racism. And in response to a few uncomfortable facts, you come up with a whole long comment about lil' ol' me!
Now the decent thing most people would do would be to apologize after something like that, but, hey, I don't expect it. And you know what, it doesn't even bother me in the least. You really have no ability to offend me or 'get under my skin' as you put it whatsoever. If anything, I find you, well, amusing.
Oh, the 'gun rights absolutist thing'? I have no idea what you mean. But, just to take a guess, if you mean that I advocate Americans owning military weaponry like bazookas and machine guns, no checks to see that felons or the mentally ill are able to buy them or gang bangers coming to 6th grade in the AM armed with illegal handguns they stole somewhere, show me exactly where I wrote that. We both know it doesn't exist, although I'm certain you interpreted something to twist into your own brand of 'facts', the same way you somehow found 'racism in the above article. You really ought to take an honest look at how you do that, for your own good. Your opening comment is a perfect example, and it doesn't become you,not really.
*chuckle* so much for 'logic', hmmm?
When you come up with stuff like that and then say with a straight face that you want 'a real argument'..well, thanks for making me laugh. Again.
BTW, just so you know, this site doesn't exist per se to 'foster debate', although it goes there sometimes. It exists to entertain and inform, or whatever else I choose to do with it.
Because it's mine, y'know. Not yours, nor does it exist give you any sort of platform besides what I choose to give you, and frankly, that's limited to your amusement level and my having the time and inclination to indulge you. Please understand that.
BTW, re: Christie. You were one of the people who asked what I thought about it, but as I pointed out today, anyone who reads the site already knows what I think of him, although he had me fooled right at the very beginning. But such creatures always reveal their true nature.
Oh, one more thing. You and I don't have 'private e-mails'. Ordinarily I respect that sort of thing religiously..just ask David Horowitz, or Melanie Phillips, or Rich Lowrey, or some of my confidential sources. But that sort of thing is limited to people I actually know, and unfortunately you don't qualify.
Regards,
Rob
Post a Comment