DOJ tells schools to implement race-based punishments

[nehalem256]

And to you that says disciplining black kids for using cell phones in class is racist? No, it's how the school responds to those incidents that can be racist. The actions they take as a result.

So you agreeing then that discplining students for using cellphones CAN BE RACIST!!!

And it seems the criteria the DOJ is using is that if a greater % of black students than white students uses cellphones in class, ie disparate impact, it is racist.

Seems like you are agreeing with what I was saying.

 

[Matt1970]

And to you that says disciplining black kids for using cell phones in class is racist? No, it's how the school responds to those incidents that can be racist. The actions they take as a result.

Exactly. They are claiming the mandatory punishment for cell phone use is racist.

 

[nehalem256]

These guidelines aren't there to decide who we can and can't label 'racist.' They're there to outline what sort of policies would be considered legally discriminatory. As the letter says, it's a multi-step process. In Step ONE - where it questions if there is a disparate impact - yes, it might be discriminatory enough to go on to Step Two. At Step Two, it asks if there is an important educational goal. Clearly there is (tardiness means less education time and more disruption), so it goes on to Step Three, where it asks if there is a less discriminatory way to accomplish the same educational goal. I don't see one, and if no one else can think of a better solution, then it's not legally discriminatory to enforce tardy rules EVEN IF it exclusively impacts black students.

But, say there's a rule against having curly hair. It's enforced evenly on everyone, white and black alike, but for some crazy reasons seems to impact black students a lot more than white students. Is that perfectly fine? Of course not! It serves no important educational goal.

So why is tardiness used as an example of a possibly discriminatory policy and not curly hair?

 

[berzerker60]

So why is tardiness used as an example of a possibly discriminatory policy and not curly hair?

See my edit to my last post, or to just copy/paste here:

Or something in the middle: there's a rule that you get expelled from school, zero tolerance, any time you're late to school. It's enforced evenly for everyone and not meant to be racist at all, but for some reason seems to impact black students more (maybe they live mostly further away and are bussed in by an unreliable driver; maybe this particular set of black students just happens to have more students who don't give a shit and are late a lot; doesn't really matter why). Step two: is there an important educational goal? Sure! Step three: Is there a way to handle the problem that doesn't impact the black kids so much more than the white kids? Well, maybe. Maybe instead of zero tolerance, you allow the bus driver to write them a note if he got delayed in traffic. Maybe instead of expulsion, where students don't get to learn anything and just fall further behind, you have in-school punishments. Maybe you try to organize the parents to set up some kind of ride-sharing program so they can work together to make sure everyone shows up on time. If those would still accomplish the educational goal (make sure students show up on time and don't disrupt others by coming in late) without as much disparate impact, that's what the rule should be for everyone going forward.

Seems like common sense to me.

It's not that the zero-tolerance anti-tardy policy was 'racist,' it's that there was another way to accomplish the same educational goal using different rules that also are the same for everyone. As such, the school should prefer the rules that are less racially disparate in their impact - but no one is calling the school racist in either case. It's just a quest for accomplishing important educational goals in the least disparate way possible - but again, if there IS no non-disparate way, and it IS an important goal, then it is FINE to have different impacts.

I would suspect the whole point of using tardiness as an excuse is to point out that it's not about people being mustache-twirling villains, it's just a matter of rethinking policies to impact people as evenly as possible, all else being equal.

 

[Jaskalas]

So why is tardiness used as an example of a possibly discriminatory policy and not curly hair?

You know... they could give tardiness ONLY to kids with curly hair... :hmm:

 

[boomerang]

No one is responsible for their actions but themselves.

No longer. Our tax dollars are going to raise a generation of twerker's.

 

[ivwshane]

RAWR!!!! I'm outraged before even reading all the details!!!

Quick! Let's make a thread before that outrage goes away!

Our education system is a failure as evidence by the OP's post and subsequent replies by people who didn't read all the details.

Moonbeam! How about a post telling them why they would concur with an article without reading the background the article refers to? I like seeing them defend their bubble from attack!

 

[boomerang]

RAWR!!!! I'm outraged before even reading all the details!!!

Quick! Let's make a thread before that outrage goes away!

Our education system is a failure as evidence by the OP's post and subsequent replies by people who didn't read all the details.

Moonbeam! How about a post telling them why they would concur with an article without reading the background the article refers to? I like seeing them defend their bubble from attack!

See everyone? I told you progz were insane.

 

[Matt1970]

RAWR!!!! I'm outraged before even reading all the details!!!

Quick! Let's make a thread before that outrage goes away!

Our education system is a failure as evidence by the OP's post and subsequent replies by people who didn't read all the details.

Moonbeam! How about a post telling them why they would concur with an article without reading the background the article refers to? I like seeing them defend their bubble from attack!

Apparently according to the DOJ our education system is a huge failure. And we did read the details. Do you not seeing us quoting it?

 

[nehalem256]

Or something in the middle: there's a rule that you get expelled from school, zero tolerance, any time you're late to school. It's enforced evenly for everyone and not meant to be racist at all, but for some reason seems to impact black students more (maybe they live mostly further away and are bussed in by an unreliable driver; maybe this particular set of black students just happens to have more students who don't give a shit and are late a lot; doesn't really matter why). Step two: is there an important educational goal? Sure! Step three: Is there a way to handle the problem that doesn't impact the black kids so much more than the white kids? Well, maybe. Maybe instead of zero tolerance, you allow the bus driver to write them a note if he got delayed in traffic. Maybe instead of expulsion, where students don't get to learn anything and just fall further behind, you have in-school punishments. Maybe you try to organize the parents to set up some kind of ride-sharing program so they can work together to make sure everyone shows up on time. If those would still accomplish the educational goal (make sure students show up on time and don't disrupt others by coming in late) without as much disparate impact, that's what the rule should be for everyone going forward.

Seems like common sense to me.

Why is it necessary to rewrite the rules if it just happens to impact black students more? Assuming there is as in your example no intentional, unintentional, accidental, or any other kind of racism.

Seems like such a DOJ requirement is a clear equal protection violation.

 

[michal1980]

And to you that says disciplining black kids for using cell phones in class is racist? No, it's how the school responds to those incidents that can be racist. The actions they take as a result.

did you read the letter?

if more black kids get punished then white kids, even if the punishment was fairly, and evenly given. The DOJ will investigate to make sure no racism is taking place.

With Obama in charge, every school knows what that means - punish black kids less, and white kids more.

 

[DrPizza]

I hate to interrupt the nonsense being discussed in this thread - apparently many of those who claim to have read the letter meant "my eyes moved back and forth, but I did not comprehend it."

For example, in our investigations we have found cases where African-American students were disciplined more harshly and more frequently because of their race than similary situated white students. In short, racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem.

For you who don't seem to understand what they're talking about, they don't mean that there's a discipline problem is 40 black students are disciplined for being tardy, while only 20 white students are disciplined for being tardy, when black students constitute only 10% of the school's population. What they're saying is that the problem is that 50% of the black students who were tardy were suspended, while 30% of the white students were suspended for being tardy - THAT is where the discrimination is occurring.


Again, the discrimination isn't the rate at which black students are punished versus the rate at which white students are punished. The discrimination is that of students committing the same offense, the rate at which black and hispanic students are receiving harsher punishments is greater than the rate at which white students are receiving harsher punishments.


In other words, many of you posting in this thread have no reasonable argument & are completely wrong. Carry on.

 

[Daverino]

Here's an example:

Let's say your school district has 50% bussed and 50% walking students. 90% of the bussed students are white. 90% of the walking students are black. Walking students, because of weather and what not, are more likely to be tardy. Thus a 'racially neutral' punishment of being tardy ends up being unevenly applied to blacks because of their circumstances of being more local to the school and more likely to be walkers.

There wasn't any malice intended in the policy but it ends up being unevenly applied by race. The letter says that school districts need to be aware of these things.

Outrage not found.

 

[DrPizza]

did you read the letter?

if more black kids get punished then white kids, even if the punishment was fairly, and evenly given. The DOJ will investigate to make sure no racism is taking place.

With Obama in charge, every school knows what that means - punish black kids less, and white kids more.

So, in reference to my post above, you don't have a clue what the letter means. It doesn't mean what you just posted. What it means is that if the punishments don't match the rates at which the offenses are occurring, that's when it's a problem. E.g., if every white kid who cheats on a test gets a zero, and every black kid who cheats on a test gets suspended, then there has been discrimination. It doesn't matter what the racial make-up of the school is.

edit: I should point out that the DOJ letter goes further in pointing out that at the administrative level, it may appear that the punishments are the same and evenly handed out - something which was pointed out above. But those who pointed it out above apparently ignored that the DOJ letter gave specific examples as to how the discrimination was occurring at the classroom level, before it got to the administrative level:

Such intentional discrimination in the administration of student discipline can take many forms.
The typical example is when similarly situated students of different races are disciplined
differently for the same offense. Students are similarly situated when they are comparable, even
if not identical, in relevant respects. For example, assume a group of Asian-American and
Native-American students, none of whom had ever engaged in or previously been disciplined for
misconduct, got into a fight, and the school conducted an investigation. If the school could not
determine how the fight began and had no information demonstrating that students behaved
differently during the fight,
e.g., one group used weapons, then the school’s decision to discipline the Asian-American students more harshly than the Native-American students would raise an inference of intentional discrimination.
Selective enforcement of a facially neutral policy against students of one race is also prohibited
intentional discrimination. This can occur, for example, when a school official elects to overlook
a violation of a policy committed by a student who is a member of one racial group, while
strictly enforcing the policy against a student who is a member of another racial group. It can
occur at the classroom level as well. The Departments often receive complaints from parents
that a teacher only refers students of a particular race outside of the classroom for discipline,
even though students of other races in that classroom commit the same infractions. Where this is true, there has been selective enforcement, even if an administrator issues the same consequence for all students referred for discipline.

 

[nehalem256]

Here's an example:

Let's say your school district has 50% bussed and 50% walking students. 90% of the bussed students are white. 90% of the walking students are black. Walking students, because of weather and what not, are more likely to be tardy. Thus a 'racially neutral' punishment of being tardy ends up being unevenly applied to blacks because of their circumstances of being more local to the school and more likely to be walkers.

There wasn't any malice intended in the policy but it ends up being unevenly applied by race. The letter says that school districts need to be aware of these things.

Outrage not found.

Why do school districts need to be aware? It seems like the policy you described would be equally "unfair" if the races were equally likely to be bussed/walk. So why does the fact that one race, by complete happenstance, was disparately impacted should the district have to waste its time being aware?

 

[waggy]

IF the punishment is not equal for offense across teh board then there is a issue. IF you are punishing a black worse then a white then yes it is a problem. it should be equal.

 

[waggy]

Here's an example:

Let's say your school district has 50% bussed and 50% walking students. 90% of the bussed students are white. 90% of the walking students are black. Walking students, because of weather and what not, are more likely to be tardy. Thus a 'racially neutral' punishment of being tardy ends up being unevenly applied to blacks because of their circumstances of being more local to the school and more likely to be walkers.

There wasn't any malice intended in the policy but it ends up being unevenly applied by race. The letter says that school districts need to be aware of these things.

Outrage not found.

thats just insane. and has is NOT what the paper was about

if the walking students are getting more tardy's then they should get up 10 minutes earlier. That has nothing to do with race..

The DOJ want's those kids who are tardy to get the same punishment. not giving blacks a suspension and whites a letter home.

 

[michal1980]

Here's an example:

Let's say your school district has 50% bussed and 50% walking students. 90% of the bussed students are white. 90% of the walking students are black. Walking students, because of weather and what not, are more likely to be tardy. Thus a 'racially neutral' punishment of being tardy ends up being unevenly applied to blacks because of their circumstances of being more local to the school and more likely to be walkers.

There wasn't any malice intended in the policy but it ends up being unevenly applied by race. The letter says that school districts need to be aware of these things.

Outrage not found.

start walking earlier.

 

[michal1980]

So, in reference to my post above, you don't have a clue what the letter means. It doesn't mean what you just posted. What it means is that if the punishments don't match the rates at which the offenses are occurring, that's when it's a problem. E.g., if every white kid who cheats on a test gets a zero, and every black kid who cheats on a test gets suspended, then there has been discrimination. It doesn't matter what the racial make-up of the school is.

edit: I should point out that the DOJ letter goes further in pointing out that at the administrative level, it may appear that the punishments are the same and evenly handed out - something which was pointed out above. But those who pointed it out above apparently ignored that the DOJ letter gave specific examples as to how the discrimination was occurring at the classroom level, before it got to the administrative level:

Way to not read what I posted.

What I'm saying.


1) all white kids that talk on a phone and get suspended
2) all black kids that talk on a phone get suspended

3) the number of black kids suspended while talking on phones is 2x as many as while kids

according to the DOJ, the school gets in trouble. because its racist because more black kids are getting suspended while talking on the phone.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Another round of insanity from our top attorney in the land, Mr. Eric Holder. He's been flying under the radar lately, but he is still flying, in fact he's soaring.

Experts slam DOJ letter telling schools to implement race-based punishments

Progressives are insane. They are off their meds and the have no intention of getting back on them. They scurry through the halls and tunnels of D.C. creating mayhem and havoc under the guise of "fairness". They will bring the nation to its knees but only if we continue to let them.

Hey, it's only fair in the eyes of progz.

Well, looking at actual news sites it doesn't appear to be quite as you are presenting it.

For one, it's not DOJ letter, it was released jointly with the Dept of Ed.

Secondly the letter doesn't appear to order anyone to do anything. It appears to be a set of non-binding guidelines.

"The federal school discipline recommendations are nonbinding. They encourage schools to ensure that all school personnel are trained in classroom management, conflict resolution and approaches to de-escalate classroom disruptions — and understand that they are responsible for administering routine student discipline instead of security or police officers."

from
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/govt-offers-approach-classroom-discipline-21456860

and to continue:

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2428761/Feds-issue-guidelines-for-school-discipline-expulsion-last-resort

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/ed...to-black-students/stories/2014010902250000000


Now you can get back to your previously scheduled 'outrage party'.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So I read it.

Two students commit an identical offense. One is a minority.

When is the school in trouble for disciplining?

Based on the letter in question, never.

 

[Victorian Gray]

spin spin spin.

how much is Obama paying you Carny for posting on the web?


Futhermore. Did you read the letter?

Its an awesome read

Interesting as you apparent didn't actually understand what you were reading. Mainly, that it's a non-binding set of guidelines.

 

[Thebobo]

Should I call Eskimospy a libtard or progtard?

How about not calling anyone names, it does nothing to support your argument and it makes you look immature petty and very un-christian.

 

[Victorian Gray]

More Carny spin.

If it has been policy then why is the Obama admin spending time drafting these letters?


Did you read the letter?


If schools polices are well defined, and fairly implanted, but a race commits the crime more, then the race hustlers like Obama will investigate and punish the school.

Show us where it says that.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I only read the letter.

Have you?

Obama tells you to spin and you jump into action.

Care to address the actual letter? Or are you going to continue attacking media you disagree with for reporting it?

I quoted a few parts of it. But since you must have not gotten your talking points yet you cant address them.

Do you understand the meaning of "nonbinding"?

nonbinding

adjective


having no legal or binding force <a verbal agreement is considered nonbinding in this state>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/nonbinding