DOJ tells schools to implement race-based punishments

[Victorian Gray]

That is why. It would seem that if you interpretation of the Civil Rights Act is true it is clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment of equal protection. As it is assigning special protections to certain groups.

You mean like toaster lovers?

 

[waggy]

You mean like toaster lovers?

Don't be so anti-toaster love man!

 

[Victorian Gray]

So do you want to explain why:


Those disciplinary rules are not necessary to meet import educational goals?

They are certainly *not* disciplinary rules that need to be enforced by the judicial system as is becoming ever more frequent in the US.

http://economichardship.org/should-kids-go-to-jail-for-skipping-school/

and then there's this:

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/11/school_prison_pipeline_meridian.html

http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/the-school-prison-pipeline-how-horseplay

 

[Victorian Gray]

It basically means, all schools are guilty, and it is of the DOJ's discretion which schools will be punished and which ones not.

<sigh> the letter is nonbinding. <sigh>

 

[Pray To Jesus]

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

For eskimospy? Your suggestion is like telling me not to call Stalin or Mao mass murdering atheist fascists.

 

[Victorian Gray]

LOL. There are bunches of people quoted:
Joy Pullmann, managing editor of School Reform News
Andrew Coulson, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute
Frederick Hess, director of education policy at the American Enterprise Institute

You can even see the document yourself, but I guess I can understand you need to wait to hear from Rachel Maddow before you know what to think.

nonbinding, nonbinding, nonbinding, the letter is

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well to be fair insubordination and acting out can easily be judgement calls so it is not absurd to think that their might be some hidden racism going on.

However, the inclusion of black and white things like being tardy, having a cellphone in class, not wearing a uniform make it pretty clear that the DOJ is not just trying to eliminate racism.

I think the real question is though. What happens when zero-tolerance policies meet "disparate impact"?

Will we get to a point where white students are expelled if they chew a poptart into a gun shape, while a black student is only expelled if his gun has more than 7 bullets in it?

I'm beginning to think that you love straw men more than you do toasters.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Back on topic:

The DOJ letter seems reasonable as far as the guidelines. Discrimination is bad and schools should try their best to help ALL their students succeed.

I agree that disruptive students will ruin a class if nothing is done. Zero tolerance is bad because it treats people as objects.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

This letter contains no such REQUIREMENT. It's NONBINDING.

 

[nehalem256]

This letter contains no such REQUIREMENT. It's NONBINDING.

“Schools also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race.

Examples of policies that can raise disparate impact concerns include policies that impose mandatory suspension, expulsion, or citation (e.g., ticketing or other fines or summonses) upon any student who commits a specified offense — such as being tardy to class, being in possession of a cellular phone, being found insubordinate, acting out, or not wearing the proper school uniform.”

So you are trying to tell me that federal laws are "nonbinding"? Interesting...

 

[Victorian Gray]

Don't be so anti-toaster love man!

I'm sorry, but it's just wrong!








:biggrin:

 

[Victorian Gray]

Back on topic:

The DOJ letter seems reasonable as far as the guidelines. Discrimination is bad and schools should try their best to help ALL their students succeed.

I agree that disruptive students will ruin a class if nothing is done. Zero tolerance is bad because it treats people as objects.

[applause] It's wonderful to see a reasonable opinion that makes sense. [applause]

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you are trying to tell me that federal laws are "nonbinding"? Interesting...

"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."

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

 

[nehalem256]

"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."

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

So if the Department of Justice send you a letter detailing its interpretation of federal law you are just going to ignore it?

 

[Victorian Gray]

So if the Department of Justice send you a letter detailing its interpretation of federal law you are just going to ignore it?

So if someone provides you with a piece of factual information are you just going to ignore it? In your case the answer seems to be, yes, constantly.

btw, do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have children or who do not want children should be legally allowed to marry?

 

[waggy]

This letter contains no such REQUIREMENT. It's NONBINDING.

To ignore it and think its nonbinding is about the dumbest thing you could do.

 

[Victorian Gray]

To ignore it and think its nonbinding is about the dumbest thing you could do.

It *is* non binding. That's the nature of these kinds of letters.

 

[waggy]

It *is* non binding. That's the nature of these kinds of letters.

LOL and like i said you go ahead and ignore it. it would be the dumbest fucking thing you could do.

 

[Matt1970]

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'.

"If the Departments conclude that a school is in violation of Title IV or Title VI in the
administration of student discipline, the Department will attempt to secure the school's
voluntary agreement to take specific steps to remedy the identified violation before seeking redress in court or through an administrative hearing."

Does that sound non-binding to you?

 

[Geosurface]

students of a particular race, as compared to students of other races, are disproportionately: sanctioned at higher rates; disciplined for specific offenses; subjected to longer sanctions or more severe penalties; removed from the regular school setting to an alternative school setting; or excluded from one or more educational programs or activities.

There's another factor that people usually don't take into consideration when they look at "disparate impact" whether it's in the criminal justice system or in school discipline.

If all you look at is a very basic report from a certain district which shows you acts committed and punishments issued and then you say "hey look! this group is getting harsher punishment for the same act as compared to this other group!" you are failing to take into account this very important consideration. That consideration being the specifics of the incident.

Two students can be tardy or disruptive and do so in different ways. Both might be logged identically, but the actual events which unfolded may have some important differences which resulted in different punishment. If Student A comes into class late by a few minutes and this is only their third time doing it, and when taken to task by the teacher for it they are contrite and agree to improve while Student B comes into class much later, when the class period is almost over, and then when taken to task by the teacher is belligerent and confrontational and tells the teacher to F off, and shows complete disrespect for the teacher's authority and the importance of attending class, these two students might both reach the kind of statistics the DOJ has to look at with only "tardiness" for information of the offense, accompanied by information on how they were punished, with nothing going into those specifics. Student B may also have had many more unpunished incidents before the teacher had enough.

So to sum up, how did this specific incident fit into the offender's larger pattern of behavior, how severe was the offense, and how did they react to being disciplined?

Certain groups are more bought into cultures which dictate that you flout the rules and disrespect authority figures as much as possible in order to gain and retain cred, and this culture is the explanation for both the higher offense rate among those groups, as well as the more severe specifics which translate into worse punishments.

These record keeping systems almost never are detailed enough to reflect these specifics and even when they do include some of that information, people who are tallying things up to show "disparate impact" and who want to explain it by blaming the teachers/police/courts rather than the offenders (and Eric Holder's DOJ is much more of this bent than most previous DOJ's) are not known for their honesty in incorporating that data.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

I read exactly what you posted, and since you reiterated it, my interpretation of what you posted is exactly what you've just posted again. My reply was a polite way of saying that you have poor reading comprehension skills. Because, what you said above is NOT what the letter from the DOJ says.

The letter says that if teachers or administrators look the other way while some of the white kids talk on their phone, or they don't give the same level of punishment - THAT's when they are discriminating.

 

[michal1980]

I read exactly what you posted, and since you reiterated it, my interpretation of what you posted is exactly what you've just posted again. My reply was a polite way of saying that you have poor reading comprehension skills. Because, what you said above is NOT what the letter from the DOJ says.

The letter says that if teachers or administrators look the other way while some of the white kids talk on their phone, or they don't give the same level of punishment - THAT's when they are discriminating.

It does say that.

right from the letter.

READ

The administration of student discipline can result in unlawful discrimination based on race in two ways...
second, if a policy is neutral on its face &#8211; meaning that the policy itself does not mention race &#8211; and is administered in an evenhanded manner but has a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race

 

[DrPizza]

Read just a little further, because they have examples that clarify exactly what they meant in that paragraph.

 

[brycejones]

Good grief.....thread should be locked purely based on the title being a false statement

 

[michal1980]

Read just a little further, because they have examples that clarify exactly what they meant in that paragraph.

So now it does say what I said it did.