DOJ tells schools to implement race-based punishments

[Geosurface]

Something that everyone should keep in mind is that with anything like this, whether it's no child left behind or any sort of disparate impact issue or test scores or literally ANYTHING - when these directives or expressions of concern come down from on high, the way the schools actually attempt to address these issues on the ground is always a completely shocking horror show which I assume and hope is unintended.

Some very problematic measures are taken in most of these situations to try to "address" the issue.

Someone else already mentioned what Miami-Dade Schools did with reclassifying crimes as just being school issues, because they were concerned not only about the amount of crimes students in the system were committing and how that looked, but specifically they were concerned about the usual racial pattern and how that was perceived as particularly embarrassing, disparate impact, etc.

And I assume ALL of you will be at least somewhat familiar with the ridiculous things schools did to comply with "no child left behind" - it was a disaster.

This kind of dictating what the end result of academic and/or disciplinary processes should be from on high, never turns out well. People panic, scramble, hide the true situation, and cut corners to squeak into being "facially compliant" with these directives.

 

[DrPizza]

So now it does say what I said it did.

It gives 6 examples, none of which remotely come close to your interpretation. Then, they give a 7th example, not too close - related to the busing issue that someone else brought up earlier. I'll summarize that example:
One racial group lives fartheraway from the school than other racial groups. As a result, the other groups can walk to school and get there on time. But, the other group is forced to use public transportation. Even though those students arrive at bus stops early enough, sometimes the bus drops them off late. A no tolerance policy for tardiness resulted in that racial group being penalized at a greater rate.
It said that in this case, it's still not discrimination if the school can demonstrate that there are reasons that such a policy must exist, and that there aren't any alternatives that result in the same educational outcome, but with less of an impact on that racial group. It then gave a couple examples of alternatives that would result in less of an impact to that racial group that were reasonable.


For your example to be valid, there wouldn't be a reason for such a policy, OR, the school would be able to have a different policy that met the same need.

In other words, it goes far beyond just the numbers. There still has to be discrimination - in this case, the discrimination is inadvertent. With the bus policy, it was "oops, we didn't realize this would impact that racial group disparately as a result of circumstances beyond their control."

 

[shira]

spin spin spin.

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

So we have a policy that targets no one, and the punishment is always applied the same, but because one race happens to be punished more often, its unlawful.

That's the kind of fucked up racist thinking you support.

You obviously cannot read and comprehend:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf

The Departments recognize that disparities in student discipline rates in a school or district may be caused by a range of factors. However, research suggests that the substantial racial disparities of the kind reflected in the CRDC data are not explained by more frequent or more serious misbehavior by students of color. Although statistical and quantitative data would not end an inquiry under Title IV or Title VI, significant and unexplained racial disparities in student discipline give rise to concerns that schools may be engaging in racial discrimination that violates the Federal civil rights laws. For instance, statistical evidence may indicate that groups of students have been subjected to different treatment or that a school policy or practice may have an adverse discriminatory impact. Indeed, the Departments' investigations, which consider quantitative data as part of a wide array of evidence, have revealed racial discrimination in the administration of student discipline. 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 similarly situated white students. In short, racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem.

The DOJ is clearly stating that it's found significant evidence of discrimination in the imposition of punishment that that cannot be explained by higher levels of misbehavior, or more severe misbehavior, by certain racial groups. But cearly you "know" that the DOJ is lying. Obviously, you've performed your own research and know that the CRDC data is wrong.

 

[CanOWorms]

Sounds like a step in the right direction to dismantle white privilege.

Hopefully it extends to the criminal justice system, too.

 

[ivwshane]

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?

I'll stick to my original comment. Sure you guys read it, even quoted it, but you guys clearly can't comprehend it.

Every time new info and clarification is pointed out to you guys you try and move the goal posts. Pretty classic M.O.

 

[Murloc]

It gives 6 examples, none of which remotely come close to your interpretation. Then, they give a 7th example, not too close - related to the busing issue that someone else brought up earlier. I'll summarize that example:
One racial group lives fartheraway from the school than other racial groups. As a result, the other groups can walk to school and get there on time. But, the other group is forced to use public transportation. Even though those students arrive at bus stops early enough, sometimes the bus drops them off late. A no tolerance policy for tardiness resulted in that racial group being penalized at a greater rate.
It said that in this case, it's still not discrimination if the school can demonstrate that there are reasons that such a policy must exist, and that there aren't any alternatives that result in the same educational outcome, but with less of an impact on that racial group. It then gave a couple examples of alternatives that would result in less of an impact to that racial group that were reasonable.


For your example to be valid, there wouldn't be a reason for such a policy, OR, the school would be able to have a different policy that met the same need.

In other words, it goes far beyond just the numbers. There still has to be discrimination - in this case, the discrimination is inadvertent. With the bus policy, it was "oops, we didn't realize this would impact that racial group disparately as a result of circumstances beyond their control."

can't they just take an earlier bus?

 

[Zstream]

Sounds like a step in the right direction to dismantle white privilege.

Hopefully it extends to the criminal justice system, too.

Does that go for the whities paying majority of taxes to?

 

[michal1980]

It gives 6 examples, none of which remotely come close to your interpretation. Then, they give a 7th example, not too close - related to the busing issue that someone else brought up earlier. I'll summarize that example:
One racial group lives fartheraway from the school than other racial groups. As a result, the other groups can walk to school and get there on time. But, the other group is forced to use public transportation. Even though those students arrive at bus stops early enough, sometimes the bus drops them off late. A no tolerance policy for tardiness resulted in that racial group being penalized at a greater rate.
It said that in this case, it's still not discrimination if the school can demonstrate that there are reasons that such a policy must exist, and that there aren't any alternatives that result in the same educational outcome, but with less of an impact on that racial group. It then gave a couple examples of alternatives that would result in less of an impact to that racial group that were reasonable.


For your example to be valid, there wouldn't be a reason for such a policy, OR, the school would be able to have a different policy that met the same need.

In other words, it goes far beyond just the numbers. There still has to be discrimination - in this case, the discrimination is inadvertent. With the bus policy, it was "oops, we didn't realize this would impact that racial group disparately as a result of circumstances beyond their control."

so just because there isn't an example you dismiss it ? (and of the 6 example only one directly address disparate impact)

But once again you missed the point again... the threat of a DOJ investigation is enough to change school admin behavior.

Its not above the Obama admin to target its political opponents using the DOJ. If the DOJ wasn't ordered to push its racial agenda it wouldn't have issued this letter.

therefore the only conclusion to reach is that the DOJ is going to come after schools where blacks get punished wrong. And the only way schools can avoid that, is by allowing bad behaviors by blacks to go unpunished.

 

[fskimospy]

so just because there isn't an example you dismiss it ? (and of the 6 example only one directly address disparate impact)

But once again you missed the point again... the threat of a DOJ investigation is enough to change school admin behavior.

Its not above the Obama admin to target its political opponents using the DOJ. If the DOJ wasn't ordered to push its racial agenda it wouldn't have issued this letter.

therefore the only conclusion to reach is that the DOJ is going to come after schools where blacks get punished wrong. And the only way schools can avoid that, is by allowing bad behaviors by blacks to go unpunished.

That is an amazing string of logic you put together there. Lol.

 

[michal1980]

You obviously cannot read and comprehend:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf



The DOJ is clearly stating that it's found significant evidence of discrimination in the imposition of punishment that that cannot be explained by higher levels of misbehavior, or more severe misbehavior, by certain racial groups. But cearly you "know" that the DOJ is lying. Obviously, you've performed your own research and know that the CRDC data is wrong.

1) Because the DOJ and Obama admin have been known to be honest? F&F, using the IRS to target their opponents etc etc.

2) Not all of the research was conducted by the government. I'm sure the DOJ cherry picked studies that supported its conclusions

3) The section you quote comes before the DOJ goes on to talk about the disparate impact.

4) instead of trying to fix the problems in the African American communities the DOJ & Obama have found it easier to excuse the behavior.

But its obvious your in the tank for Obama and no matter what they do you'll approve of.

 

[michal1980]

That is an amazing string of logic you put together there. Lol.

Hold on.

Let me use eskimospy logic;

Obama does it = good.


But please please try to prove me wrong. You can't.

Why? Because the letter was written. The sections I quoted were put in. Why write the letter and add in that section if you aren't trying to make an impact? Why was your time? Why use examples like cell phone use?

You have no answers, only deflections and blind faith in Obama.

 

[boomerang]

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.

How many of those students are on their third and final warning that resulted in suspension? We don't know this information. Does the .gov know, or are they just making a blanket determination that Jimmy, the black student that got suspended after being late for school his third time in two weeks got suspended while Mary the white girl didn't after being late once in the same two week period. This is just to cite one of many possible contributing factors.

I would ask some questions.

Is there widespread racism in disciplinary actions within our school systems that warrant the DOJ getting involved? I would think stories that would lead up to an action like this would be all over the media. The media eats this kind of story up.

What percentage of resources is the DOJ devoting to investigations of this type? Is this a cost-effective expenditure of tax dollars? What prompted their investigations? Complaints from parents? I would refer back to question one.

Is this a form of political grandstanding in an election year?

Will this assist our public schools in providing a better education to our students? The article has quotes that lead one to believe that this will not be the case. You are a schoolteacher. Would your classroom be better suited to learning with x number of students watching youtube videos on their phones in your classroom that you could not discipline because your quota had been met for the week or would it be better to have the trouble makers removed and hopefully taught a lesson on what is not acceptable behavior in the classroom?

 

[fskimospy]

Hold on.

Let me use eskimospy logic;

Obama does it = good.


But please please try to prove me wrong. You can't.

Why? Because the letter was written. The sections I quoted were put in. Why write the letter and add in that section if you aren't trying to make an impact? Why was your time? Why use examples like cell phone use?

You have no answers, only deflections and blind faith in Obama.

Your entire chain of logic is hilariously inept, relying on baseless assumptions.

Not everyone is as blind as you are.

 

[brycejones]

Is this a form of political grandstanding in an election year?

Sure seems like someone is grandstanding but I don't think its the DOJ...

 

[cubby1223]

Dammit you liberal talking heads - there is one thing to say we want a world where we solve problems fairly and give everyone full respect and rainbows & unicorns will reward us. It's another thing for the DOJ to declare that every school is in violation of federal laws for any disciplinary action (because unless you meticulously enforce race-based quotas there will never be total absolute equality).

It's a system where you are inherently guilty, and you have to continuously appease anything & everything the federal government wants or else funding is cut.

If you liberals believe this is the best system to build a better tomorrow, then I have to disagree with you. That's the end of the discussion part of this topic. Conservatives generally believe that government is the problem, while liberals generally believe that government is the solution. There is no bridging this divide through discussion.

 

[Jadow]

Eric Holder looks like Warren Moon

 

[shira]

1) Because the DOJ and Obama admin have been known to be honest? F&F, using the IRS to target their opponents etc etc.

2) Not all of the research was conducted by the government. I'm sure the DOJ cherry picked studies that supported its conclusions

3) The section you quote comes before the DOJ goes on to talk about the disparate impact.

4) instead of trying to fix the problems in the African American communities the DOJ & Obama have found it easier to excuse the behavior.

But its obvious your in the tank for Obama and no matter what they do you'll approve of.

In other words, you have nothing substantive to disprove any of the statements in the letter. You even go so far as to repeat thoroughly discredited allegations about the IRS - a completely unrelated topic involving a completely different department of the U.S. government, by the way - to reinforce your beliefs. You're "sure" that the reasons given and evidence cited in the letter just can't be true.

If this is all you've got, why do you even bother to post?

You are the poster child for what we mean when we say "conservatard."

 

[Matt1970]

You obviously cannot read and comprehend:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf



The DOJ is clearly stating that it's found significant evidence of discrimination in the imposition of punishment that that cannot be explained by higher levels of misbehavior, or more severe misbehavior, by certain racial groups. But cearly you "know" that the DOJ is lying. Obviously, you've performed your own research and know that the CRDC data is wrong.

The "significant evidence of discrimination" is a paper they cite which costs $10 read. Have at confirming their source. But then again, this is a department that views mandatory punishments for cell phone use as concern for racism. I am sure they will have a different view on what significant is as well.

 

[fskimospy]

The "significant evidence of discrimination" is a paper they cite which costs $10 read. Have at confirming their source. But then again, this is a department that views mandatory punishments for cell phone use as concern for racism. I am sure they will have a different view on what significant is as well.

Dude you seriously suck at using the internet. It took me all of ten seconds to find a free copy of that paper. The fact that you didn't even attempt to look for it tells me that you were more interested in finding a way to ignore it.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7398&context=jclc

EDIT: Now that you have access to it I'm sure you will declare it unacceptable for a different reason almost immediately.

 

[Matt1970]

Dude you seriously suck at using the internet. It took me all of ten seconds to find a free copy of that paper. The fact that you didn't even attempt to look for it tells me that you were more interested in finding a way to ignore it.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7398&context=jclc

EDIT: Now that you have access to it I'm sure you will declare it unacceptable for a different reason almost immediately.

You know I looked for it because you found the same info I did at first. Searching Google for Understanding the Antecedents of the “School-to-Jail”
And you would have seen the first link has no free download available, and the second link is for Amazon and it's $10 and copyrighted. And low and behold, wouldn't you know it, right in your link is "Copyright © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law" and unlike you I didn't just the $10 and copyrighted info out of my ass.

 

[fskimospy]

You know I looked for it because you found the same info I did at first. Searching Google for Understanding the Antecedents of the “School-to-Jail”
And you would have seen the first link has no free download available, and the second link is for Amazon and it's $10 and copyrighted. And low and behold, wouldn't you know it, right in your link is "Copyright © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law" and unlike you I didn't just the $10 and copyrighted info out of my ass.

What the hell are you talking about? I just highlighted the name of the study from the PDF in chrome and searched for it in Google. The PDF link I sent you was literally the first result. If you looked for it you did a piss-poor job.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Understanding+...lationship+Between+Race+and+School+Discipline

It is available for free on Northwestern's website. I didn't spend $10. I have no idea what you're talking about with copyright.

 

[Matt1970]

What the hell are you talking about? I just highlighted the name of the study from the PDF in chrome and searched for it in Google. The PDF link I sent you was literally the first result. If you looked for it you did a piss-poor job.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Understanding+...lationship+Between+Race+and+School+Discipline

It is available for free on Northwestern's website. I didn't spend $10. I have no idea what you're talking about with copyright.

Look at the heading on page 2 of your article.

 

[fskimospy]

Look at the heading on page 2 of your article.

What is your point?

 

[Matt1970]

What is your point?

You said you have no idea what I was talking about with the copyright. The heading on page 2 of your article says "Copyright © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law"

 

[fskimospy]

You said you have no idea what I was talking about with the copyright. The heading on page 2 of your article says "Copyright © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law"

Why is that in any way relevant to our discussion?