Public School System: Racism a "White" Thing
Or, Reason # 3,167 why our family moved half-way across the country to a place where Catholic education was more affordable (not that the public shools in Virginia or elsewhere are quite THIS bad).
Rod Dreher has the details:
This is making the blogosphere rounds. It's a list of definitions of racism taken from the Seattle public schools website. Presumable it defines school policy. It's bizarre, and more than a little scary. For example, according to the Seattle Public Schools, only white people can be racist. Seriously, look it up. So what do they do when a black, Latino or Asian kid picks on a white kid using racial slurs? Or non-white kids use racial epithets against each other? According to the Seattle Public Schools, if you are white and you insist that you have rights, you are guilty of racism. Individualism and "having a future time orientation," whatever that is, are also signs of racism. And if you happen to be white and question these definitions, well, that just goes to show how racist you are.
Madness. And some people wonder why others have lost faith in public schooling.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 12:37 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Abysmal. Anti-white racist crap like that will only encourage reciprocal real white-against-minority racism.
Hang on, now. Did you read the material on that website? There's a lot that's perfectly reasonable. Remove the meaningless phrase "future time orientation," and this definition of culturalal racism makes perfect sense:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
I do find the definition of "racism" troubling, although I wonder if it could be read as if Whites are just an example of the group with "relatively more social power."
My teenager complains about this all the time. In a 60% white, 40% nonwhite class, he has to listen to fellow students who tell teachers who dare to discipline them, "You're just saying that because I'm black." Let white teenagers listen to that enough, and they WILL become racist, out of frustration with all that.
"Hang on, now. Did you read the material on that website? There's a lot that's perfectly reasonable."
Nope. The whole thing's pretty much horseshit.
Nope. The whole thing's pretty much horseshit.
Racist!
Well, you're flat-out wrong about that, but if you just want to parrot what all the other right-wing bloggers want you to parrot, then be my guest. You clearly didn't read it with an open mind.
Oh yeah, I forgot -- you're not allowed to have an open mind.
You clearly didn't read it with an open mind.
Because he's a racist, right? Has to be, because only a racist would take issue with it.
Contrary to what "local man" says, it's not just a "right-wing blogger" whose definition of racism differs from the Seattle schools' kooky, insulting, racist definition of racism.
Indeed, anyone with common sense, or an elementary grasp of the law, would reject Seattle's definition as racist and unreasonable.
Under federal law, contrary to what Seattle says, whites can be victims of racism, and can sue when they are.
For example, in Bowen v. Missouri (8th Cir. 2002) and Huckabay v. Moore (5th Cir. 1998), federal appeals courts allowed whites to sue for being treated in a racist manner by blacks.
In Taxman v. Board of Education (3d Cir. 1996), a federal appeals court held a white woman could sue for being layed off rather than a black co-worker.
And in Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989), the Supreme Court held that local governments generally can't discriminate against whites, invalidating a municipal affirmative action policy.
Seattle is also wrong to suggest that minorities can't practice racism against other minorities.
School systems have repeatedly been held liable under Title VI for allowing blacks to racially harass Asian students.
Unlike "local man," I don't see anything in the Seattle schools' wacky definitions that is "perfectly reasonable." Legally, it certainly is not reasonable.
Unlike "local man," I see nothing "open minded" about a definition of "cultural racism" that equates individualism with racism and thereby equates those who prize individual rights or initiative (such as entrepreneurs or civil libertarians) with racists.
Post a Comment
<< Home