I was going to write this as a comment in response to some of the notes responding to my previous post on the MPA, but I think it bears higher priority, and heck, I get to post here, so I will:
You know something I just noticed about this whole argument?
Curiously, those who are so animated about opposing the Amendment and the outrage shown over “writing discrimination into the Constitution” (who needs to come up with better catch-phrases? Anyway…) are more troubled by legislators (who are elected and therefore held accountable for their actions) not accomodating the will of the people. The point being that the majority of Americans are opposed to the Amendment (another thing that makes me wonder what the hell all the fuss is about…like you could pass an unpopular Constitutional Amendment–my point exactly) so how dare their representatives pass unpopular legislation, as if there were no remedy for such action.
What’s so ironic (if irony weren’t dead in the gay community already) is that these activists have no problem, it seems, with unelected and unaccountable judges thwarting the will of the people (in some places, for example, overruling overwhelmingly popular–whether I agree with them or not–votes against gay marriage).
Point being: Any of those who oppose the passage of this Amendment on small-d democratic grounds is either playing very cynical politics or lost in their own self-interest if they’re not at least as bothered by the usurping of the public’s will through judicial decisions.
Oh, and another thing: Those who say W and the rest of the Republicans are waging a “campaign of fear” (oh brother), take a look at some of the comments on this very blog from the apocalypic Anti-Anti-Gay-Marriage Amendment Cassandras when anybody dares tell the truth about this horrible Amendments lack of hope.
Nick, just to check my understanding… So your position seems to be:
(1) the MPA is wrong, but
(2) it doesn’t matter because it can’t possibly pass, so
(3) the people opposing it with dramatic rhetoric are fearmongers. Also hypocrites, because they pretend to love people’s rights, but have no qualms about using judicial diktat to block the people’s right to vote and decide stuff democratically.
Is that correct?
That’s most of it, and better, more succinctly written than how I did it, thanks!
I’d also add, by the way, that those who stomp and yell about homosexuals ruining marriage otherwise are also fearmongering. Just noting the irony and hypocracy of the other side is all.
ColoradoPatriot, what the heck did you say? Between all the parentheses and such I’m not sure you even made a point!
Everytime GayPatriot, GayPatriotWest, rightwingprof, Michigan Matt, et al, and (now) ColoradoPatriot write about judges thwarting the will of the people I’m tempted to ask a question. And today I will.
Was the U. S. Supreme Court wrong to strike down racially segregated schools in 1954? We all know that if left to the popular will there would still be racially segregated schools (and other institutions) in many parts of our country. (Remember, a full decade passed before the people’s representatives finally got around to passing a meaningful civil rights act.)
Just weeks ago, Nebraska’s legislature enacted a law that orders the break-up of the Omaha School District into three smaller districts of black, Latino and white majorities. The state’s far-right, inept incumbent governor easily won a Republican primary against a Nebraska icon in great part due to landslide-level support from white voters in Omaha suburbs, who, until the new law passed (with the governor’s support), feared their schools might be merged with Omaha’s city schools.
It is popular will — but racially segregated schools in the 21st Century are just plain wrong. And those “evil” federal judges will certainly void the Nebraska law, popular will or not.
#5: That’s an excellent point. We don’t even have to go back to the 1950’s – there was the Loving marriage case in the late 1960’s. A large majority of the population in those states that had anti-miscegenation laws supported those laws and here we had a few activist judges overturning the will of the people as expressed through their lawmakers. Not only that but the anti-miscegenation laws were equally applicable to all races so they were not obviously discriminatory.
FWIW, the anti-SSM amendment will not pass this time. It’s a political ploy by a party that’s obviously concerned about the turnout of their base in November. I would like to see the Dems ALL walk out when this odious amendment comes to a vote.
Nonetheless, I would say that the GOP leadership would be quite encouraged if they were to read the posts and comments of the happy gay GOP troopers on this blog.
Was the U. S. Supreme Court wrong to strike down racially segregated schools in 1954?
Depends on how you look at “wrong”.
First off, by 1954, many states had already eliminated racially-segregated education.
Second off, segregation had always been justified under “separate but equal”. Brown v. BOE laid out, in a nutshell, that, in the fifty-plus years since Plessy v. Ferguson, a mountain of evidence had accumulated that “separate but equal” sounded good in theory, but never seemed to work in practice. The decision basically was, “We told you that you could have a separate system only if you could keep them equal. You can’t. Therefore, you cannot have a separate system.”
Finally, the thing to remember is that the judiciary operates, ultimately, at the whim of the voters — since voters are the only ones who can alter fundamental law. That is why state AND Federal constitutional amendments, regardless of how they are proposed, require a majority or supermajority of the electorate to pass them.
In the case of Brown, not enough people cared to alter fundamental law. Same with Loving, which also should be viewed in the context of how many states had eliminated (or never had in the first place) their miscegenation laws.
As for your example in Nebraska, that’s not exactly segregation; whites, blacks, and Latinos may attend whatever schools they choose, provided they reside in the appropriate district. What I found interesting is that Ernie Chambers, the only black member of the Unicam and the one who represents most of minority Omaha, is in favor of the bill — because, as he argues, it lets students attend schools in their own community and gives the community more of a say in how schools are operated.
#7 by North Dallas Thirty — June 4, 2006 @ 1:25 am – June 4, 2006
As for your example in Nebraska, that’s not exactly segregation; whites, blacks, and Latinos may attend whatever schools they choose, provided they reside in the appropriate district.
Some of us who aren’t completely brain-dead know that Omaha’s “appropriate districts” were drawn completely in regards majority racial/ethnic lines. That’s analogous to “red-lining,” whether by banks or real-estate agents.
You really should consider stopping embarrassing yourself.
It is popular will — but racially segregated schools in the 21st Century are just plain wrong.
I would ask 1) why you want to go charging head-long off topic and 2) what has been gained with forced integration other than to make some feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Fact is, Bushie means it — that is, to permanently enshrine discrimination into the Constitution (regardless of how unexciting that phrase is to the poster above). Those, like NDT, who argued for years here that Bush doesn’t really mean it, should take note that the man used a national radio address to announce his reengagement in the issue (and say, NDT, isn’t it time to trot out your old Dems-are-worse-for-gays silliness?).
So, yes, the fact is that Bush is serious — he needs to get the Cult of Dear Leader moving again, something, anything to overcome what has become his legacy of The.Worst.President.Ever — the President of Super Deficits, Iraq, Katrina, etc.
Further facts are that:
1) Your arguments about “popular will” are empty (Trace above did a good job of reminding you of that).
2) You so-called gay patriots apparently support this assault on your own future rights — anything for the party, right queers?
3) So you’re stuck. You’re blindly strapped to the anti-gay party, doomed to a life of making arguments against your own interests, rationalizing amid a down spiral.
These are the sad facts for a very sad crowd of people who are probably even too young to have known what it was like to face widespread public scorn for being who you are — people who’ve probably grown up gay in the 90’s, thinking the “lifestyle” was nothing more than an endless magic cycle of Friday night GOP meetings, Saturday night blow jobs, and Sunday in church.
Queer Patriot
#9 writes, “I would ask 1) why you want to go charging head-long off topic”.
But the question is hardly off topic. Our President, or to use GPW’s frequent rhetorical phrase to end all debate–THAT GOOD MAN–. used his Saturday radio address to support the MPA, a move that even many conservatives see as nothing more than a cynical attempt to raise his sinking political capital. In obedient fashion, the posters here must now show how the real enemy is someone other than their fellow conservatives. Presumably blaming Clinton for this is a stretch so instead they reach for that old bogeyman–the liberal activist judges intent on thwarting the people’s will. #5 quite reasonably asks that if one’s position is that judges should not overrule strongly held beliefs of majorities, was _Brown v. Board of Education_ decided wrongly.
This is a perfectly legitimate question that is only off topice for those who don’t want to be forced to reveal the implications of their opinion. It is quite easy to pull out the old “liberal activist judges” card, but less easy for those who do so to ratinally explain the consequences of what they are saying. ND30 gave it a try but placing aside his amusingly Clintonian response (depends on the meaning of wrong–uhm, OK) I for one can’t find any connection in his response between word and thought. It would be helpful if those requested responded to Trace Phelps’ question and preferably without mentioning Dean, Clinton and DOMA or suggesting that the answer lies in reading Mary Cheney’s (THAT GOOD WOMAN) book. And finally, just so you know, the majority of the activist judges from Massachusetts who issued the Goodridge ruling were appointed by republican governors, including the one-time hero of the gay right William Weld, whoses allies have been surprisingly quiet on his recent flip flopping on gay marriage, now that he is running for the Senate in New York.
First off, by 1954, many states had already eliminated racially-segregated education.
A total of 16 prohibited it at the time, while 17 mandated segregation, 11 had no legislation on the matter (which left the door open to unofficial segregation), and 4 states had optional/limited segregation.
Source. Whatever happened to the argument about states rights and Federalism, NDT?
In the case of Brown, not enough people cared to alter fundamental law. Same with Loving, which also should be viewed in the context of how many states had eliminated (or never had in the first place) their miscegenation laws.
And yet 16 states still prohibited interracial marriage, including my own state of Virginia (which was the other side of Loving). Again, what of states rights and Federalism?
It sounds to me as if there are times when some conservatives are perfectly willing to overlook their own arguments for limited national government in order to achieve an end, while at other times they are screaming about states rights and Federalism. I fail to see why I should consider the push for FMA as anything more than some conservatives following this very same hypocritical path.
Nor do they have any problem with legislators thwarting the will of the people, at least in the PRK, where the issue was decided by the voters at the ballot box, and then the leftist legislators tried to undo it.
We recently had a primary here where we yanked many incumbents for crap like that. It’s way past time PRK voters did the same.
North Dallas 30, out in San Francisco, shouldn’t present himself as an expert on things going on halfway across the continent in Nebraska!
I consider Senator Ernie Chambers one of the most brilliant members of the Nebraska Legislature and agree with him on many issues — such as blocking bans on medical research, protecting women’s rights, trying to secure gay rights, etc. — but the man is basically a black separatist.
There are four (and about to be five) school districts in the city of Omaha. The Omaha School District, where whites are in the minority, has all the problems (children from low income families and students for whom English is a second language) but the four predominately white suburban districts have the tax base. Using an old law that states there can be only one school district in Omaha, the Omaha district attempted to take over the suburban districts. (The suburban outrage was a major factor in the far-right-wing governor’s victory in the GOP primary.)
The Legislature drafted a bill that would put all the school districts in two counties, one of which hosts no part of the City of Omaha, into a Learning Community. Tax revenues would be pooled and students could attend any school in the two counties. Senator Chambers (who, by the way, ND30, does not represent most of Omaha’s minorities — just a predominately black area) amended the bill to break the Omaha School District into three smaller districts, one predominately white, one predominately Latino and one predominately black. He was quite open about his intent: he wants a predominately black student body taught by a predominately black faculty and a predominately black school board with plenty of resources (meaning tax levies on the white districts in western Omaha as well as the other county). Yes, students can opt out and attend other schools — as Nebraska law has already allowed for many years — but not many blacks (have or) will.
If that isn’t segregation, I don’t know what ND30 thinks he’s talking about.
Legislative leaders (most of whom won’t be around when push comes to shove because of term limits) said they hope the new law forces Omaha and the suburban districts to work together to voluntarily resolve the basic problems. Perhaps the law will ultimately do that but in the meantime Nebraska law mandates establishing in several years three new school districts that are predominately white, Latino and black.
(I apologist for taking so much space to “go off topic” but North Dallas Thirty’s pompous attitude that he knows everything about everything makes my blood boil.)s
Some of us who aren’t completely brain-dead know that Omaha’s “appropriate districts” were drawn completely in regards majority racial/ethnic lines. That’s analogous to “red-lining,” whether by banks or real-estate agents.
Segregation, Raj, is the legal denial of students from attending a school based solely on race.
Please show me, as you claim, that students in Omaha, Nebraska, are legally barred from attending a school therein based solely on race.
We’re waiting.
If that isn’t segregation, I don’t know what ND30 thinks he’s talking about.
I notice, Trace, that you left out one of the key points of Chambers’s argument; namely that, since the Omaha school district had ceased busing years ago and was requiring students to attend schools in their residential area regardless of race, the district had demonstrated that racial makeup of schools was no longer a concern, the district was already operating in racial imbalance, and that there was no issue.
Chambers’s bill, in that context, makes logical sense; instead of one large school district, Omaha would now have three, centered by and based on communities, with far greater ability by local groups to influence schools in their area instead of having one giant sprawling district.
In essence, Trace, Chambers forced you to consider the issue. Do you intend to bus students across Omaha to ensure the correct “racial makeup”? Do you intend to continue flying in the face of numerous examples that show students in schools that have greater community interest and involvement do better? Do you intend to undo Nebraska’s entire school finance system to be local-district-based only, and receive no per-pupil equalization from the state?
If you had bothered to read my bio at some point, Trace, you might know that I live currently in San Francisco. Before that, it was Texas, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.
A total of 16 prohibited it at the time, while 17 mandated segregation, 11 had no legislation on the matter (which left the door open to unofficial segregation), and 4 states had optional/limited segregation.
AGJ, bounce that against the fact that forty-five states currently have laws and legislation explicitly banning gay marriage on the books, many recently passed and stiffened.
It sounds to me as if there are times when some conservatives are perfectly willing to overlook their own arguments for limited national government in order to achieve an end, while at other times they are screaming about states rights and Federalism.
ND30 gave it a try but placing aside his amusingly Clintonian response (depends on the meaning of wrong–uhm, OK) I for one can’t find any connection in his response between word and thought.
That’s because you don’t want to see it.
The ultimate arbiter of what is “right” or “wrong” in this country, by our Constitution, is the will of the electorate.
Had the electorate decided, before OR after Brown, to amend the Constitution to empower segregation, it would have been within their right to do so.
Just as it is within their right now to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
The reason you try this desperate flailing of “right” and “wrong” using Brown, Brendan, is nothing more than to rationalize your leftist belief that the electorate does NOT hold the power to check the judiciary — a belief born out of your complete and utter inability to persuade voters to the rightness of your views.
Hiding behind Brown, furthermore, is utterly pathetic. Blacks in America faced conditions far worse than gays do today. Furthermore, blacks did not use “black power” as an excuse to wage jihad against Christians, the religious, conservatives, Republicans, and everyone else, as do gay activists. MLK and others were smart enough to realize that blacks represented the whole spectrum of American thought, belief, and practice, and presented that diversity to the American public in a way with which they harmonized.
What you need to come to grips with, Brendan, is that your insistence that all gays must think and act a certain way has poisoned the electorate against us. The hate you fling at the Mary Cheneys of this world make it obvious that this is not a battle of “gay rights”, but a battle using “gay rights” to impose your leftist ideologies.
(I apologist for taking so much space to “go off topic” but North Dallas “Thirty’s pompous attitude that he knows everything about everything makes my blood boil”
Get in line.
“you might know that I live currently in San Francisco. Before that, it was Texas, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. ”
I spent six hours in the Frankfurt airport last week. I think I’ll write The History of Germany.
Now we re-visit the hank who spirals into senseless, resentful blather when someone expresses opinions he may not care for with justifiable confidence.
“Senseless and resentful?”
That wasn’t directed at you. Why don’t you keep your constant reviews of my comments to yourself? I don’t seek or need your approval.
hank offers with tongue in cheek: “I spent six hours in the Frankfurt airport last week. I think I’ll write The History of Germany.”
Ummmm, fact checker here.
raj baby has already done that and he read a German magazine, his mom was of German citizenship, and he’s eaten German food; clearly trumps your claim to Authority on the matter –heck any 1-L student would have known that (sorry raj baby, I couldn’t help it)
Trace: to answer your question about whether I thought SCOTUS was “wrong to strike down racially segregated schools in 1954” the answer would be yes; they were wrong.
No need to quibble on definitions of what “wrong” is for me.
SCOTUS has been wrong about many policy issues over its long history –whether controlled by a majority of jurists appointed by Democrat presidents or not. So has Congress. And so have lots of state legislatures, state courts and executive offices.
Roe v Wade is one. Bakke is another.
Just because the Court is the referee on Constitutional matters, doesn’t mean they get it right. Heck, read nearly any dissenting opinion and you’ll see some good examples of fruitcake –they aren’t even in the Pride Float. Fruitcake. Not even a 1-L student would recognize some of those opinions as judicial or wise.
Are we supposed to submit to their decisions? For the most part, yes. As now Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito made point of in their individual confirmation hearings. But SCOTUS has been wrong; often.
Contrary to your suggestion, just because the Court does something does NOT make it right. They reached the wrong decision in your example –and it wasn’t the first time… won’t be the last.
“Racial discrimination is wrong in the 21st Century”? Really, Trace?
Tell that to the small businesses competing for govt contracts that instead go to black and minority firms based on quotas. Tell that to the grad school admission candidate that can’t get into the school he/she wants because of preferential treatment of minorities. Tell that to the kids in school who have been taught that merit matters –not the color of your skin– while the Federal judge thinks it is ONLY about skin color and “equal outcomes”. Tell that to the radio or TV franchise that wants to penetrate a market and is told by the govt that there are too many “white owned” stations in the area and they want the next few licenses to go to minorities.
Racial discrimination is wrong in the 21st century, Trace? Really now. You need to get with Ian S and hank and head down to the local Democrat Party HdQtrs… them guys ain’t got the message yet.
#20 – Step 2 of the downward hank spiral – Check.
Step 3? Wait for it…
hank, it isn’t that you are one of the aggrieved or protected groups I noted… it’s that you’re a hog in the pen of the Democrat Party and they haven’t learned yet that racial discrimination in the 21st c is wrong –they support it via affirmative action, employment preferences, and govt contracting quotas.
I, too, would perfer (sic) not to argue with you. But it depends on what you mean by “argue”; I don’t gather you and Calarato argue. In honor of the National Spelling Bee… go look up “comprehend” and practice it once in a while. The biggest benefit: Calarato will appreciate it and you’ll save time posting nonsensical replies.
Honest, it works.
With hank insistently showing us his death spiral this morning, the scientist in me is ready to catalogue the steps.
Step 1 – NDT or somebody says something he disagrees with. They may be right or they may be wrong. But they have facts and reasons, that they state with appropriate confidence.
Check. (See whole thread above.)
Step 2 – hank can’t stand anyone speaking with confidence – or actually knowing more than him, ever… so it’s time to roll out his “senseless and resentful” mode – wherein he attempts to belittle others’ knowledge, rather incoherently.
Check. (See #18, where he tries to belittle, but cannot negate, the fact that NDT has actually been a Nebraska citizen. Also see #23, where he brings up a discussion from a completely different thread, wherein I used real citations from biology textbooks to fact-check stuff he’d bitched up.)
Step 3 – If people further correct him, hank attempts a round of petty insults… telling the person to shut up, insisting he’s not after their approval (but then why is hank here, doing all this acting-out?), etc.
Check – see #20, and bits of #23.
Step 4 – Up to hank.
– Will it be his martyr act?
– Or will it be the declaration that he’s leaving? (Which he can never keep, and that nobody has the slightest respect for anyway – LOL)
– Or maybe the crazily inappropriate name-calling?
– Or maybe the raving into the ether at nothing and no one at all?
All of which we’ve seen on this blog, many times. But – with that, I’m officially too tired / bored to find out! I’ll only venture one prediction: Feeling stung, hank will now try to echo or imitate my words in some fashion. Later dudes 🙂
To Michigan Matt, commenting in 22: Please don’t distort my comments. Yes, I think all forms of racial discrimination are wrong. But that’s not what I said in my comment about segregated schools — which you misquoted. I said..”racially segregated schools in the 21st Century are just plain wrong.”
To North Dallas Thirty: There’s no argument that schools in the Omaha School District were, in some cases, racially imbalanced because of housing patterns. But that, at least in my opinion, does not justify mandating by law the creation of racially imbalanced school districts.
And, of course, I would not want to disrupt the state’s school aid program — and never said I did. (My suburban Omaha school district would have been bankrupt years ago if not for the equalization provision of state aid.) In fact, the basic issue which led to the new state law creating a Learning Community and altering school district boundaries could have been resolved by simply upping Omaha’s state aid to fully fund programs for disadvantaged students and students for whom English is a second language.
And, ND30, why would I ever bother to read your biography? I’ve never visited your blog and don’t intend to. People like you have moved my beloved Republican Party away from its core principles and made it what Republican author Kevin Phillips calls a “religious party”.
There’s no argument that schools in the Omaha School District were, in some cases, racially imbalanced because of housing patterns. But that, at least in my opinion, does not justify mandating by law the creation of racially imbalanced school districts.
Ah, but you see, Trace, the law doesn’t “create” a racial imbalance; it simply states that the priority of the school system is to increase local control and involvement, even if schools are “racially imbalanced”.
Furthermore, you need to explain to me what the correct percentage of students of each race in each district should be in order for them to no longer be “racially imbalanced”. Then I want to see you apply that to places like Alliance, Sidney, Valentine, and others.
And, ND30, why would I ever bother to read your biography?
Well, a good reason would be so that you don’t blunder into making stupid statements like you did previously, where you implied I knew nothing about Nebraska and had never lived there.
Trace, good God! You actually think Kevin Phillips is someone to quote or admire? What rock have you been living under?
“Beloved party”, my ass.
BTW, racial segregation of schools is racial discrimination, Trace. Except in that old “beloved” GOP of yours where the biggest issue of the day at the country club was deciding whether to wear suede or ultrasuede to Dance Club that evening.
Beloved party, my ass. And Kevin Phillips? In one comment! The devil beast has arrived.
To Michigan Matt: There you go again, trying to turn the Republican big tent into a little pup tent. Kevin Phillips is a longtime Republican who, to my knowledge, has never deserted the core principles of the Republican Party (unlike President Bush and that gang running Congress).
And please don’t redicule me for loving the Republican Party — at least the party of Eisenhower, Goldwater and Reagan. Unless you’re older than I think you are, I was working my butt off for the Republican Party and Republican candidates before you were old enough to spell R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n. And I don’t regret one penny of the nearly one million dollars donated to the party and candidates (in the pre-Bush years).
P.S. to Michigan Matt: Why is it so damn difficult for you to respond to comments without resorting to name-calling?
Maybe you can call Kevin Phillips, Trace, and ask him what the correct definition of “racially balanced” is. I’m still waiting for you to provide the correct ratio of whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. and then explain how you’re going to apply that to the districts I cited.
Go on. You said that the state must act to eliminate “racial imbalance” in schools. Tell us what that means and how you can do it.
Pardon me if I take issue. The ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong is God, not an electorate.
But I do take your point.
To North Dallas 30 in 30: You’re deliberating misquoting me. I never said Nebraska must act to end racial imbalances in the Omaha schools. I admitted it was true, as Chambers claimed, that some schools were racially imblanced because of housing patterns. I went on to say it was wrong for the state legislature to mandate racial imbalance by creating predominately black, white and Latino school districts.
I would strongly oppose state-mandated racial segregation of public schools — as existed before Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 and President Eisenhower’s use of troops to enforce desegregation in Little Rock. But I think it is unrealistic to try to end racial imbalances in the schools caused by housing patterns. Magnet schools in black neighbors may alter the balance by attracting some white students from the suburbs but they can’t end imbalances. One of Omaha’s welathiest school districts wants to develop low cost housing close to its schools but that won’t help much either.
People have a right to choose where they can afford to live and there’s no way — short of drastically denying our freedoms — to dictate that people buy or rent homes in a way that desegregates neighborhoods.
Forcing busing moves children around and ends mostly black or mostly white schools but it’s an expensive and wasteful approach. It saps school district resources that are needed in the classrooms, it tires children and puts them at risk on long bus rides and it removes children from the familiarity and comfort of neighborhoods and friends. (When Omaha still had forced busing, many black parents opposed it as strongly as did white parents. That’s why voters in the Omaha School District passed a $250,000,000 bond issue to build new neighborhood schools — or renovate older buildings.)
The Nebraska law to which Chambers added his amendment to break up the Omaha School District has a kicker that most people haven’t paid much attention to, and many state senators didn’t understand. But some of the superintendents in the school districts in a predominately white county bordering Omaha on the south are very much aware. It provides that the state may dissolve any school district that refuses to cooperate with integration. That probably means that some senators anticipate large numbers of blacks and Latinos in Omaha being moved to predominately white schools in neighboring cities of Bellevue, Papillion, Springfield and Gretna. I’m convinced that isn’t Chamber’s goal since I believe he really does want a predominately black school district run by a black school board.
There’s no racial “imbalance” in most smaller Nebraska schools because the rural communities are predominately white. There is certainly racial imbalance in some of the towns where packing plants are located. The city schools are becoming predominately Latino as white families enroll their children in adjoining rural schools. I don’t have a real problem with that as long as the imbalances aren’t mandated by government. And some of that imbalance will likely end later this month when a new law kicks in requiring elementary-only school districts to consolidate with the nearest K-12 districts.
I apologize to those readers who could care less about the racial make-up of schools in Nebraska, but this is a debate ND30 and I needed to bring to a conclusion.
I never said Nebraska must act to end racial imbalances in the Omaha schools. I admitted it was true, as Chambers claimed, that some schools were racially imblanced because of housing patterns. I went on to say it was wrong for the state legislature to mandate racial imbalance by creating predominately black, white and Latino school districts.
“Mandate racial imbalance”?
Can you show me where in the Nebraska law it requires that these schools be kept majority-white, majority-black, or majority-Latino? Does it have provision for blocking the enrollment of a white student in a majority-black school, or vice versa? Does it prevent families of different races from moving into the district? What does it do that prevents races from mixing?
Explain this to me, Trace:
— You say racial imbalances are inevitable
— You oppose changing housing laws to force different races to move into different districts
— You oppose busing
But it appears you oppose dividing school districts into smaller entities that are more responsive to local needs because of their racial imbalance — even though you would do nothing to end them.
Thousands Now breast enhancement Who Never Thought They Could