March 18, 2010

NYT: School Discipline Is Racist

From the NYT:
School Suspensions Lead to Legal Challenge

... poor black students are suspended at three times the rate of whites, a disparity not fully explained by differences in income or behavior.

On March 8, the education secretary, Arne Duncan, lamented “schools that seem to suspend and discipline only young African-American boys” as he pledged stronger efforts to ensure racial equality in schooling.

A growing body of research, scholars say, suggests that heavy use of suspensions does less to pacify schools than to push already troubled students toward academic failure and dropping out — and sometimes into what critics have called the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

A rising number of districts are already reversing course and trying new approaches, including behavioral counseling and mediation, to reduce conflict and create safer, quieter schools while ejecting only the worst offenders.

“These students were treated like criminals and abandoned by the school system for doing something that students have done forever — fighting in the schoolyard,” said Erwin Byrd, a lawyer with Legal Aid of North Carolina, which brought the suit with lawyers from the Duke University School of Law. The school district says it must retain discretion over punishments.

Some 15 percent of the nation’s black students in grades K-12 are suspended at least briefly each year, compared with 4.8 percent of white students, according to federal data from 2006, the latest available. Expulsions are meted out to one in 200 black students versus one in 1,000 white students.

Zero tolerance and the quick resort to suspensions have been politically popular, but education leaders are having second thoughts. “If our primary obligation is to educate kids, then to punish them by excluding them doesn’t make sense,” said Daniel A. Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said strict punishment should not be the main tool for order.

“Lots of schools don’t provide the panoply of services we think are important — prevention and intervention strategies and alternative placements for disruptive students,” Ms. Weingarten said in an interview.

Elsewhere, the NYT will constantly demand that Something Must Be Done so that the best teachers will teach in the worst schools.

No cognitive connection will ever occur.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

90 comments:

Anonymous said...

web cameras in all public school class rooms.

Nathan Cook said...

Cognitive dissonance aside, Erwin Byrd is right. It's bloody stupid to suspend students for a semester over a brief fight.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Some 15 percent of the nation’s black students in grades K-12 are suspended at least briefly each year, compared with 4.8 percent of white students

And again, what are the rates for Asian students?

Aside from that, how do disparities in suspension rates compare to disparities with other types of misbehavior, like crime? It strikes me that blacks are more than three times as likely to commit crime, violent or otherwise. A rate only three times as high shows that either schools are more lenient towards black students or that a lot of misbehaving black students drop out before getting booted.

Anonymous said...

Is the public school experience one of the reasons why whites have fewer kids, or have them later in life ? (When they have enough money for private schools). I think so.

Thrasymachus said...

>>No cognitive connection will ever occur<<

Precisely because they have been immunized against it. Liberal arts education largely consists of building tortured rationalizations why things that are perfectly obvious to a person with an IQ of 90 are not so.

But the logic of the NYT requires, that, *simultaneously*, the best teachers be placed in the worst schools, and discipline be suspended- along with various other conditions, including unlimited funding- and then magic will occur. Their view is as long as everything they want hasn't been done, in exactly the way want and with perfect timing, it hasn't really been tried and cannot be said to have failed.

wwcffgh said...

I'll bet more boys get suspended than girls. Wow, sexist.

I'll bet more whites get suspended than Asians. Wow, racist.

I'll bet more Baptists get suspended than Jews. Wow, religionist.

nmijefr said...

Drug the black kids with soma as in the Brave New World.

Anonymous said...

OT.

Ethno-racial rivalry in NY world of film criticism.

http://www.nypress.com/article-21008-my-greenberg-problemmdashand-yours.html

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/03/armond_white.php

http://www.indiewire.com/article/armond_white_v._j._hoberman_-_the_feud_ignites/

White--black critic--sounds like a white nationalist ranting about Jewish power though he's careful to use 'white' instead of 'Jewish'.

Indicative of the repressed hostility between the two groups. Jews guarding their power and nervously patronizing blacks, and black feeling resentment at Jewish success.

Anonymous said...

I find this quite an interesting idea in that, if there's a kid who beats up other kids and the only way to stop him doing it is to exclude him, then is it worth doing, if we assume that the harm to the other kids from him beating them is relatively short term and mild (though maybe I'm wrong, who knows what bullying does to children's psyches?) while the harm from him being excluded is long term and severe for him.

I expect Liberal folks would say that it isn't worth excluding the guy, and that the bullied kids should just suck it up as a fact of life, even if they did nothing wrong. Or else they'd propose something ridiculously expense that isn't even feasible due to an obsession with moral rectitude over practicality. And I think this is actually generally consistent with their approach to crime. But I feel that this is completely against my moral intuitions and that if someone is bullying people then the first responsibility is to prevent that, provided you aren't actually bullying or torturing or physically maiming or killing the bully and that figuratively "sitting by" when people are bullied is unjust. I don't really feel that you should include the bully very much in your moral concerns.

Anonymous said...

The economic might of US shield Black american from competition from aboard for a few decades, now gobalization exposed everybody to a much more leveler playing field, the students from India/China/Vietnam fight for every chance to learn, to improve themselves and behave themselves. The influx of Latino have been hard on black. The coming decades will be hard on American, but it will be even harder on Black american. They wasted their chance to improve themselves, they will be sure to regret this

Anonymous said...

My declaration of the liberal (and Obama-ite) goal of "Racial Communism" does not seem so far fetched does it?


Ive had dialogue with a couple of blacks whom one would call "black advocates" in particular. Their logic -constantly- when addressing almost any issue is this: Whites "recieve" (never earn, only recieve) a particular credit or demerit at a higher/lower percentage than blacks, therefore the whole situation is racist and needs to be legally remedied.

Examples:

"Blacks recieve X-times longer prison sentences than whites"

"Whites recieve X-times more college degrees than blacks"


Every single disparity is framed in this way, and all are of course due to racism.


They are 'racial communists'. Whatever you have, I get to have just as much, and if I don't, the situation is racist.
-----------------------------------


Randy Weingarten has exactly the kind of face one should expect a liberal to have. Has anybody else ever noticed how many passionate left-wing advocates tend to be homely? Its as if they were not socially accepted to the degree they wanted to be in youth, so they embrace "the other" and agitate against the host society for the rest of their lives in a neverending performance-art-political statement of alternating moral vanity/host hatred. If Weingarten has kids, the smart money is that they are in (of course) a private school, shielded from the very students she probably doesn't want suspended.
----------------------------------

Can't help it: Tell me whats really cruel? Not suspending a bully who beats up other students, and psychologically abusing those victimized students by having them sit for hours a day in close proximity to that bully who so threatens them, or just adequately punishing the bully, one bad kid, to the relief of the other little kids? The elite's kids dont have to go to school with thugs-on-training-wheels, but regular kids do. Thats a real disparity.

l said...

Daniel A. Domenech and Randi Weingarten think the solution is to hire more staff for schools. How about that?

Tommy said...

Well, if it gets rid of the brainless "zero tolerance" rules, it might not be entirely bad. How about reinstituting corporal punishment for misbehavior?

Anonymous said...

You often accuse others of "race-baiting" but you are definitely race-baiting, Mr. Sailer.

Anonymous said...

Were you and I reading the same article? It's absolutely clear to me the black kids got the harsher punishment for one and only one reason: They black.

that's it.

ziel said...

Nathan Cook - "It's bloody stupid to suspend students for a semester over a brief fight."

You actually believe such lies?

Dahinda said...

Why do you read the NYT? The Weekly Reader is probably as informative as a source of news!

Anonymous said...

"The elite's kids dont have to go to school with thugs-on-training-wheels, but regular kids do. Thats a real disparity."
B.S.!
I do not have "elite" income. I do have multiple children in private schools. How is this possible?
1- Catholic schools give tuition help (read lower tuition) based on income.
2- One of my children attends on a partial academic scholarship.
3- I have never owned a new car.

Your car payment goes a long way toward tuition payments. What are your priorities?

Enoch Was Right said...

Here's how the NYT describes the behavior of those nice black kids: "The fistfights at Southside High School involved no weapons and no serious injuries, and in some ways seemed as old-fashioned as the country roads here in eastern North Carolina." Right - the savage beating of students is as American as apple pie. The NYT never, ever tells the truth about anything.

Anonymous said...

On March 8, the education secretary, Arne Duncan, lamented "schools that seem to suspend and discipline only young African-American boys" as he pledged stronger efforts to ensure racial equality in schooling.

An Interview With Education Secretary Arne Duncan
By Jeffrey Mervis
Science 10 April 2009:
Vol. 324. no. 5924, p. 159
DOI: 10.1126/science.324.5924.159
sciencemag.org

During a recent interview with Science in his Washington, D.C., office, Education Secretary Arne Duncan discussed science education standards, the federal government's role in education, and how to make teachers more effective...

SCIENCE: As the second education secretary with school-aged kids, where does your daughter go to school, and how important was the school district in your decision about where to live?

DUNCAN: She goes to Arlington [Virginia] public schools. That was why we chose where we live, it was the determining factor. That was the most important thing to me. My family has given up so much so that I could have the opportunity to serve; I didn't want to try to save the country's children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children's education.

Larissa said...

Nathan Cook does have a point. I don't want violent students in schools either, but where do they go when they are suspended? Probably just run the streets causing trouble.

Anonymous said...

Why do you read the NYT?

I don't personally read the NYT, and I'm not Steve Sailer, but I would guess that his answer be something along the lines of "opposition research", or "know thine enemy".

At least I hope that that would be his answer - at his age, I hope he isn't still nursing his inner latte-sipping birkenstock-wearing volvo-driving SWPL alter-ego.

Anonymous said...

Edna: Our demands are very reasonable. By ignoring them, you're selling out these children's future!

Skinner: Oh, come on, Edna. We both know these children _have_ no future!

[all the children stop and look at him]

Skinner: [chuckles nervously] Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.

Nathan Cook said...

ziel: I took as read the facts in the article. If it's ludicrous that someone would be suspended for half the school year over a single fight, tell me: I don't have first-hand experience of the American public school system.

If we're talking bullying or a history of violence, that's different. There's no reason to keep psychos or powder-kegs around.

Anonymous said...

Obama's guru for many years, a certain "reverend" by name of J. Wright, stated that blacks learned differently from whites. Something about from object to subject, or some such, the reverse of whites. Pontificating on any and all subjects he obviously regarded himself as an expert on everything. The natural conclusion would be that blacks are best served by separate schools. Obama should approve seeing as it came right out of the mouth of one of the great thinkers of our age.

Anonymous said...

Having gone to public school I want to remind people that not all fights are created equal. The minority fights were shocking in their viciousness and brutality. They also always seemed to become group affairs and served as "entertainment". They are qualitatively different when seen in person yet can't be quantified on paper; disturbances are reduced to being equivalent to one another. Thanks to blacks many schools have to have metal detectors and policemen assigned to provide security like some holding pen. It'd be better for all concerned if a way of getting rid of the disorderly kit-kaboodle for good could be found.

Anonymous said...

"Cognitive dissonance aside, Erwin Byrd is right. It's bloody stupid to suspend students for a semester over a brief fight."

C'mon Nate- if a kid was suspended for a semester it wasn't a "brief fight" it was a pattern of unruly behavior.

Dan in DC

jody said...

just in time for baseball and the now annual complaints about how there aren't enough blacks in MLB.

not enough blacks!
not enough blacks!
not enough blacks!

Something Must Be Done.

Big bill said...

The compartmentalization of the liberal mind is breathtaking . Wasn't it just a week or two ago that the Asian parents in Philly brought suit against the black-owned, black-run Philly school district for failing to protect Asian kids from endemic black violence?

And here they are insisting that any difference in violence/expulsion rate in New York City is due to white racism.

It isn't the only NYC insanity. Today's NY Daily News has an article about the Boy Scouts "hiding files" on sex offenders/homosexuals who managed to sneak in and booty bandit the little boys. This invasion by homosexuals is a continuous problem for any agency that works with boys (scouts, big brothers, YMCA, etc.).

It is almost open war between the agencies and the pooter pokers, who continually try to sneak in and poke little boys' behinds.

Yet it was the fudgepacker liberationists in NYC that championed forcing the Scouts to admit boy lovers just a couple years ago, AND worked with their dyke enablers to get the Boy Scouts thrown out of any public accomodations and get their United Way funding removed once the Supreme Court said they did not have to let Booty Bandits in as leaders or members.

Sheer insanity. The capacity of the liberal mind for cognitive dissonance is truly amazing.

ben tillman said...

Well, if it gets rid of the brainless "zero tolerance" rules, it might not be entirely bad.

Isn't the point of "zero tolerance" policies to remove the "racist" human element from discipline?

Anonymous said...

Actually, the 3X suspension rate is fully explained by behaviour.

American blacks are also 3X as likely to be convicted of violent crimes other than murder, 3X as likely to end up under Juvenile Court supervision, and, most tellingly, 3X as likely to end up in a hospital emergency room due to violence.

In other words, American blacks are three times as aggressive and violent, so a scrupulously fair absolutely race-blind school discipline scheme will quite properly suspend or otherwise impact blacks three times as often (for aggression and violence in school).

Anonymous said...

I'll bet more boys get suspended than girls. Wow, sexist.

I know you're being sarcastic, but there's actually a lot of truth to that claim about sexism. Teaching, especially at the grade-school level, has become increasingly feminized. Boys are regarded as inherently dangerous, troublesome, pathological creatures who need to be medicated to make them docile and pliable. Why do you think Ritalin and other psychoactive pharmaceuticals for kids are a multi-billion-dollar business in this country? And it ain't just the little NAM boys who are being doped up to make Ms. Crabapple's job easier. Any normal boy with normal levels of energy can find himself disciplined, tagged as ADHD, and prescribed legal speed (which is what Ritalin and Adderall really are).

Dutch Boy said...

Schoolyard fights used to be a dime a dozen, now they're a federal case (based on my son's middle school experience). Anyone involved in a fight (aggressor OR defender)is liable to suspension here in sunny Southern Cal.

Kylie said...

Anonymous said: "web cameras in all public school class rooms."

And that would accomplish what? I can't believe you think that would disprove the claims of those who say school discipline is racist against black kids.

No doubt the footage would show more black kids than white acting up and acting out. Leftists would say the misbehaving black kids were responding to subconsciously racist cues on the part of the teacher, lower academic expectations for blacks generally, white racism experienced outside the classroom, etc.

Off-hand, I can think of three areas under black governance whose abysmal failure are excused as the result of white racism, whether specific or historic: Detroit, Haiti and Zimbabwe.

Any time and any place in which blacks behave badly is always explained by the left as ultimately traceable to white racism. That's what happens when you base your beliefs on feelings, not facts. Web cameras would make no positive difference. Indeed, their mere presence in classrooms full of black disruption would only fuel further charges of white racism.

Big bill said...

This should be a warning to everyone reading this article. One of the favorite liberal "camel noses under the tent" is the law that requires an entity to gather statistics for the government. Once they get two or three years of statistics (eg how many blacks and whites are disciplined, how many blacks and whites are stopped for speeding etc.) they can then move on to the next phase: the anti-discrimination law suit.

And this is where the genius of the statistics-gathering comes in. By keeping control of the statistics defining and gathering process, they can make sure the "bad" statistics are never gathered and the whole exercise can be cast in terms of white (read: white gentile) guilt. Your questions, like "how many Asians were expelled" or "how many Jews were expelled" will never be answerable, since they never wanted to ask those questions. If they did, of course, the answer would be, "extremely few or none". But then they couldn't attack Evil White Christian Hegemony without having to explain why poor as dirt Asians, rich as Croesus Jews, and social climber Hindus ALL have expulsion rates less than whites AND blacks. And that, of course, would lead to a discussion of cultural values, IQ and a bunch of other things that undercut their Evil White Christian Male narrative.

They all have a stake in the metanarrative: blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, at least as long as we have wealth to extort in fhings like Affirmative Action hires and college admissions, and minority small business
loans and preferential contracting.

As yourself this: have you ever heard any minority agitator complain about Indian body shops pimping 100% Indian employees? Has your Fortune 500 employer ever changed it's Indian body shop because the body shop's employees were not "diverse"? Have you ever heard of the NAACP looking up the grotesque number of H1B visas from local employers and asking them why those jobs don't go to black folks? Nah. Didn't think so. They all want a pound of YOUR flesh and figure there is more than enough to go around.

Whiskey said...

Try riding the bus outside NYC. Or other centralized Eastern cities. Not gonna happen. Jobs are too spread out.

Anonymous said...

What bothers me is why Whites are always the benchmark or index against which blacks are compared. And why is that? Why not use another group? How many blacks get expelled compared to Asians for example? Is the disparity as much or even more then the black / White gap? And if it is maybe the problem is just blacks themselves rather then "racism".

rich s. said...

Steve linked a Gatto quote saying a lifelong price will be paid for ignoring bad behavior in school.
#1 in popularity at WTMJ's site is the takedown of a 24-yr.old black coed who swears and throws a water bottle in class because a teacher tells her(!) to wait till after class to discuss a test score.

Anonymous said...

It takes ony a few loud and disruptive blacks to ruin a classroom. More then a very small number and the school is in trouble.

greenrivervalleyman said...

It's not just bullies that are a problem. A relatively good-natured "class clown" type can do even more harm than a thug to his peers' educations by monopolizing the teacher's time, causing large-scale disruptions, etc.

Yet the problem of bullying does deserve a good deal of attention because the truth of the matter is NO ONE wants to live with an ongoing, uncontrolled threat to their security- not children, not adults, not nations. Just look at how batsh!t Israel went over a few unguided rockets. Societies with ongoing lawlessness will turn authoritarian and eventually fascist if need be. Arab/Muslim societies are largely the way they are because of systemic predation that can only be countered by the threat of kin group retaliation (from Morocco to Pakistan, a girl walking alone in the fields is as good as raped, in which case the dishonored family must stage a retaliatory rape against the offending family and so it goes).

If you'll indulge me in a digression here, after becoming an increasing fan of R&B music over the last couple of years I think I've come to some important conclusions about the state of black society in America. Just recently I came across this in the the bio of 90's superstars Jodecei:

The group's troubles got worse in 1993... DeVante's house was robbed of over $160,000 dollars in jewelry and clothes as the singer was held with guns in his mouth [symbolic rape?] and at the back of his head.


Now, as opposed to most rap "musicians", R&B singers do not generally grow up as ghetto thugs. Many come from stable, middle-class homes and begin their musical careers as gospel singers in their local choir.

Yet this anecdote proves that even if you take the boy out of the ghetto, well, you CAN'T take the boy out of the ghetto because the ghetto comes to him! THAT is why black musicians, athletes, and other celebrities are always being arrested on weapons charges. They need to pack because no matter their current zip code, by the associations they keep and the places they visit they constantly expose themselves to assault and robbery (and thus the recent preference for the "hard", "gansta" persona over the weak crooner of sappy love songs- it's a protective measure against criminal victimization!)

So what is the point of all this? It's just to illustrate that no matter how much money you throw at certain populations you will never get SWPL outcomes and given the DIVERSE preferences in our increasingly DIVERSE society that should be OK. After all, no one is getting all bent out of shape because the Obamas, despite their wealth and pinnacle status, do not really seem to like socializing with whites in their spare time.

mkoookejdj said...

Cognitive dissonance aside, Erwin Byrd is right. It's bloody stupid to suspend students for a semester over a brief fight.

There's a difference between odd tussles between kids and monster-man-bashes between big mofos. It's one to break up two little 11 yr olds who get into a pushing match. It's very different in black highschools or even middle schools where the students are much bigger and stronger than teachers. It's like freaking Ali vs Frazier. Teachers, especially white women, can't do anything about this. They are terrified. And black kids who get into fights do it not only on occasion but all the time for control of turf. It's not a matter of 'Billy took my apple' but 'this is MY school turf, biatch'.

The reason for the expulsion is not really for the fighting per se but because there's nothing you can do about toughies who so often get into these mega-fights. Black guys are too strong and unruly. They know everyone is afraid of them. Since they don't listen to authority and since they keeping pushing others around and getting into fights, the ONLY WAY is to kick them out.

Look, suppose you're a teacher at an obedience school for beagles. If two beagles get into a fight, you can break it up and teach them to behave. Beagles will listen.

If it's an obedience school for pitbulls, there aint nothing you can do if pitbulls start fighting. If you get in between, they'll tear your ass up. So, the only thing to do is to remove the most violent pitbulls from the school. They cannot be handled unless you can taser them, and you know that is not allowed in our schools.

Anonymous said...

Here's how the NYT describes the behavior of those nice black kids: "The fistfights at Southside High School involved no weapons and no serious injuries, and in some ways seemed as old-fashioned as the country roads here in eastern North Carolina." Right - the savage beating of students is as American as apple pie. The NYT never, ever tells the truth about anything.

Call a woman a 'honey' and that is sexual harassment and sexist violence BUT when a bunch of black kids whup one another, why that's just funning around.

I wonder what NYT would say if blacks or whites beat up a Jewish kid. As long as no weapons are involved and the Jewish kid needs no extensive hospital treatment, let's all take it in stride. Dang.

pplkmmmeue said...

Obama's guru for many years, a certain "reverend" by name of J. Wright, stated that blacks learned differently from whites. Something about from object to subject, or some such, the reverse of whites.

Though crudely put, there's some truth to this. Since blacks have different biochemistry and higher hormones which make them more aggressive, self-centered, self-assured, and self-aggrandizing, they tend to think everything and everyone revolves around 'me'. So, subjectivism is much higher among blacks than among whites or Asians. Whites and Asians, being more calmer temperamentally, are better able to let go of their ego and study reality OUTSIDE themselves--objective reality. To the black dude and dudess, reality always has to be about 'Me' as in "I'm the Greatest".

Same with Christianity. Christianity for whites has meant trying to find greater truth and justice outside one's narrow prejudices. For blacks, Christianity is essentially, "I am the baddest coolest hippest sexiest loudest dude in the world and God exists just for ME."

Cornel West said blacks are 'child-like', and this is true. Of course he meant it in a nice way, but the fact remains children are very subjective and think the world exists for 'me'.

Also, due to lower IQ among blacks, they try to compensate their lack of objective logical ability with 'creative' subjective thought. If they can't add 2 + 2 = 4, maybe they can sing and dance that 2 + 2 = 5. Correct or incorrect, it feeeeeels right, as in groooooovy. Objectively wrong, but subjectively feeeels so right.

pplkmmmeue said...

Obama's guru for many years, a certain "reverend" by name of J. Wright, stated that blacks learned differently from whites. Something about from object to subject, or some such, the reverse of whites.

Though crudely put, there's some truth to this. Since blacks have different biochemistry and higher hormones which make them more aggressive, self-centered, self-assured, and self-aggrandizing, they tend to think everything and everyone revolves around 'me'. So, subjectivism is much higher among blacks than among whites or Asians. Whites and Asians, being more calmer temperamentally, are better able to let go of their ego and study reality OUTSIDE themselves--objective reality. To the black dude and dudess, reality always has to be about 'Me' as in "I'm the Greatest".

Same with Christianity. Christianity for whites has meant trying to find greater truth and justice outside one's narrow prejudices. For blacks, Christianity is essentially, "I am the baddest coolest hippest sexiest loudest dude in the world and God exists just for ME."

Cornel West said blacks are 'child-like', and this is true. Of course he meant it in a nice way, but the fact remains children are very subjective and think the world exists for 'me'.

Also, due to lower IQ among blacks, they try to compensate their lack of objective logical ability with 'creative' subjective thought. If they can't add 2 + 2 = 4, maybe they can sing and dance that 2 + 2 = 5. Correct or incorrect, it feeeeeels right, as in groooooovy. Objectively wrong, but subjectively feeeels so right.

bbferrtr said...

If whites attack a black or brown guy, it's all over frontpage of NYT.

If whites or browns attack a white guy, it's hardly news.

NYT and liberal Jewish media must be racist.

----

80% of teachers are white women. Hiring in education is racist and sexist.

ddvbuioo said...

NPR is many times more likely to cover a story of a Jew kid killed by Palestinians than Palestinian kid killed by Jews.

NPR is racist.

swedish fish said...

Big Bill is correct, although it's not just Evil White "Christian" Males the liberals are after, it's all White males, even the liberal ones who accidentally go off script. When it comes to the war against White males they don't discriminate.

The Democrats, liberals, progressives operate on the foundation of anti-White racism. Their goal is to take down "privileged" White males by any means necessary, whether it be massive non-White immigration, anti-"discrimination" laws, anti-White male curriculum in schools, affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, White male bashing in the media and so on.

Which answers the rhetorical question of "Why do they only compare Blacks to Whites and not Asians"? That opens up a can of worms the libs don't want to deal with. The only people on Earth in the history of Human civilization that are and have been capable of racism is White people.

PTS said...

I well remember the first wave of post-Watts riots blacks to enter the suburban Los Angeles county elementary school I attended. The level of disruptive, violent behavior rose by at least an order of magnitude. White students and teachers alike were targeted. After forty years of lies and shameless groveling nothing has changed for the better. Quite the contrary is true as Big Bill and others have noted.

Keep apologizing, keep agonizing and keep running and you will keep deserving this state of affairs.

Anonymous said...

None of this should surprise anyone who understands brain anatomy. The human brain has different structures that do different things. In general the frontal lobes are inhibitory. If you put your frontal lobes to sleep with alcohol for example you become less inhibited. You become a more reckless driver and more violent in interpersonal disputes.

Violence is largely potentiated by sub-cortical structures in the limbic system. For example there is the phenomenon of the hypothalamic rage syndrome.

So you would expect that creatures with larger frontal lobes to mediate their violent impulses better and that's just what we observe.

Blacks have about 80cc less tissue in their frontal lobes than whites or East Asians.

greenrivervalleyman said...


Were you and I reading the same article? It's absolutely clear to me the black kids got the harsher punishment for one and only one reason: They black.

that's it.


Yes, and the New York Times would never cherry-pick or overlook evidence that contradicts its political biases, would it? The teaser anecdote they teach you to open with in journalism school is always 100% representative of the situation, isn't it?

This reminds me of the housing study published by the Boston Fed in the early '90's which definitively proved the existence of lending discrimination. I actually looked at the paper and its methodology did not seem fundamentally unsound, yet the fact that in the bad old "red-lining" days the black default rate were equal to that of the white (vs. the post-bubble present where it is now 100% higher and up) showed that lenders knew something about the realities of credit that researchers didn't (or were too politically correct to admit). Off hand I can think of several factors that would make lending to blacks more risky than to whites even accounting for identical credit scores, income, and net worth, such as the fact that NAMS do not invest as such in the upkeep of their property, or that black neighborhoods are always in greater danger of going down the toilet because of the lack of a sizeable middle class to stabilize things.

So when it comes to school discipline, I assume that even if the methodology is superficially sound it ignores important politically incorrect truths. As a commenter said, not all fights are created equal and the honorable, man-to-man fight is basically a "white thang". Among NAMs fights much more commonly come down to pack attacks and group stompings which are considerably more brutal. Blacks also tend to quickly escalate the intensity of fights if you beat them with your fists. From the godfather of neoconservatism:

That day in school the teacher had asked a surly Negro boy named Quentin a question he was unable to answer... I had seen Quentin's face- a very dark, very cruel, very Oriental-looking face- harden [when I answered it correctly], and there had been enough threat in his eyes to make me run all the way home for fear that he might catch me outside.

Now, standing idly in front of my own house, I see him approaching from the project accompanied by his little brother who is carrying a baseball bat and wearing a grin of malicious anticipation...

He walks up, hurls the familiar epithet ("Hey, mo'f-r"), and to my surprise only pushes me. It is a violent push, but not a punch. A push is not as serious as a punch. Maybe I can still back out without entirely losing my dignity... Instead, before I can stop myself, I push him back- a token gesture- and I say, "Cut that out, I don't wanna fight, I ain't got nothin' to fight about." As I turn to walk back into the building, the corner of my eye catches the motion of the bat his litte brother has handed him. I try to duck, but the bat crashes colored lights into my head.

Anonymous said...

These students were treated like criminals and abandoned by the school system for doing something that students have done forever — fighting in the schoolyard,
oh yes, we have seen what liberals constitutes a 'schoolyard fight' like the "jena six' beating a white kid to the point where he was in Intensive care.

Anonymous said...

It takes ony a few loud and disruptive blacks to ruin a classroom."

man is that true. In my 8th grade class in Catholic school during the mid-60s, there were about 7 black kids. The girls were ok--a couple of them were very quiet and one was actually pretty friendly. Also there was one reasonably smart black boy in the other 8th grade, and a smart black girl.

Now. What was the problem. 3 black boys. One of them would probably have been ok on his own, but with the other 2, caused more problems and disruptions. Weird. I used to think the nun was too harsh but now I realize she probably had to be. Oddly, the worst boy was a good artist and not unintelligent. Maybe he straightened out later. He went to catholic high school too.
The scary thing is that those boys, by today's standards in predominantly black schools, were not even that horrible or violent. Just disruptive and occasionally guilty of puerile sexual harrassment.

Anonymous said...

Any time and any place in which blacks behave badly is always explained by the left as ultimately traceable to white racism.

Can you give an example of a time and a place when blacks, who were left to their own devices, did not behave badly?

This is not a trick question, btw - I'm honestly curious.

I certainly know of no such example [and Harlem, during the Laguardia administration, does not count as being "left to their own devices"].

Anonymous said...

I don't have first-hand experience of the American public school system.

If you have never experienced the horror of going to a public school with black kids, then you shouldn't even join the conversation.

Heck, I was on the football team [real football, not soccer], so I could hold my own with almost all of them, but as scared as I was, I can only imagine how terrifying it must have been for the smaller kids.

And that was back in the day, before they had Crips and Bloods in an arms race with the MS13s.

l said...

This is amusing: Here Reddit hipsters wrestle with the fact that one of their own was murdered by black gangstas.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bfi8o/video_our_fellow_redditor_andrew_graham_was/

It's difficult for some to condemn the murder because the perps are black.

John D said...

I'm all for the video cameras in class. Then, just compare different races behavior.

Ultimately, blacks should have their own schools (administered and taught by blacks) so they would not be subjected to relentless white racism. That way they could behave and be disciplined however they saw fit. Make sure they get the same funding as white schools (hell, give 'em more, who cares, just give them their separate schools. Heavily NAM schools in NYC and DC already get far more per capita anyway.) Of course, they'd be even worse off then. Somehow blacks insist that the mere proximity of whites is beneficial to them (all while screaming whites are racists), and somehow whites just continue to take this without protest. Wonder what will happen once Mestizos have numerical superiority. They have no such bizarre sense of guilt over black failure and dysfunction. Might be truly grim times for blacks in a matter of a couple decades. Deserved, in my opinion.

As has been noted, if only three times as many blacks are disciplined and suspended than whites, it probably means that administrators are being particularly lenient dealing with black misbehavior given larger racial crime stats.

Mitch said...

If it's ludicrous that someone would be suspended for half the school year over a single fight, tell me: I don't have first-hand experience of the American public school system.

I'm a teacher. Generally, students are not suspended for a semester, full stop--at least, not in my state. One kid I know of sent a kid to the hospital and just got four days. Another beat the bejesus out of a kid half his size and only was threatened with expulsion.

I would guess that the untold story is either:

1) this school has had such intense problems with real violence that they have instituted this as a way to get rid of dangerous troublemakers.

2) the students had tons of incidents already and this was the looked for last straw.

Ask most teachers, and they will tell you that most discipline problems are 3-5 kids at most per class. I'm talking good, experienced teachers. I teach five classes and four are no trouble, despite some real discipline problems who I've gotten under control. I'm pretty good at keeping things in hand. But in one class, I have six kids who have a huge list of disciplinary incidents. The kids range from basically okay but crude, lewd, and non-stop yakkers to dealers to completely out of control. (Incidentally, all six are white. My school takes a lot of no-hopers because of ADA.)

It took me most of the first semester to get the rest of the kids under control with detentions and classroom management. (Which is not to say that I wasn't running the class successfully, but it was a lot of work.) At the start of the new year, I announced a policy that if anyone talked or disrupted class while I was teaching "up front", I'd send them immediately to the office with work. The veep of discipline would not do anything, but the kids would be out of my classroom. I decided I would document this and if I sent a kid out three times in two weeks, I would put an inclass suspension into effect.

For the first week or so, I kicked three of the top five trouble makers out in the first ten minutes--no fuss, no muss. No anger on my part, just bye, baby, don't let the door hit you, off you go to the principal's office. The difference after three left--any of the six--was astonishing. Classroom volume was way down, I was able to teach, and then the resulting classwork was much more manageable. Three of the kids settled down noticeably; one was rescheduled out of my class--this student was such a discipline problem everywhere that they decided to remove her from all her classes and her friends. (When I heard the news--in class--I smiled. The class cracked up.) The other one appears to be on his way to expulsion.

Now, I teach in a suburban school district. This is not a Title I school. I'm teaching low level math courses, so the older kids have zero investment in success.

But almost any other first year teacher would be curled up in the fetal position at this stuff. I just happen to be a really good classroom manager, so that this situation, while difficult, was not unmanageable. And make no mistake, I know that what I've just described is middle of the road (not minor, but certainly no where near as bad as it gets).

What to do? I agree that suspending them and taking them out of school only gives them what they want. However, the worst of these kids are actively destroying the educations of the other students. Some, given strict enough discipline, will improve. Not all, but you take your wins where you get them.

Alternative schools are probably the answer, but in order to be cost effective, warehousing the kids--putting them in rooms with computers, worksheets, and tutors--is the way to go. Ironically, this will actually work well for many of these students.

But it will never fly because of disparate impact.

Does anyone notice that the Times repeats this phrase twice:

a disparity not fully explained by differences in income or behavior.

but never describes exactly how differences in behavior fail to explain it?

Toadal said...

Big Bill said ...
But then they couldn't attack Evil White Christian Hegemony without having to explain why poor as dirt Asians, rich as Croesus Jews, and social climber Hindus ALL have expulsion rates less than whites AND blacks. And that, of course, would lead to a discussion of cultural values, IQ and a bunch of other things that undercut their Evil White Christian Male narrative.


Well done and thank you for the clarity of your insight.

USA Toady (no relative of mine) editors take up a defense of the Census Bureau's prying into our racial backgrounds in todays online edition.

... Everyone check the box labeled "other" and fill in "American." Bad idea. For one thing, American isn't a racial group. For another, it would defeat a major purpose of the Census, which is to ensure compliance with civil rights laws designed to outlaw discrimination in everything from employment to housing to education.

Which actually means of course, the major purpose of the census is to enforce discrimination of whites in everything from employment to housing to education.

A vast majority of the comments are decidedly against the editors.

"Already sent my form in with all members of the household listed as American. I refuse to take part in a racial spoils system that systematical discriminates against my fellow Americans for no other reason than the pigmentation of their skin. What started out as something good, that being a way to stop discrimination, has turned into the exact opposite; that being something to perpetuate it."

Glaivester said...

There seems an easy solution to the suspension problem.

In-house suspension. The student goes to school, and spends all day in a separate room (from the non-suspended students), doing paperwork, under the watchful eye of the more strict teachers.

Still goes to school, still has to do work, not a problem for the other kids.

Chief Seattle said...

"
... Everyone check the box labeled "other" and fill in "American." Bad idea. For one thing, American isn't a racial group. For another, it would defeat a major purpose of the Census, which is to ensure compliance with civil rights laws designed to outlaw discrimination in everything from employment to housing to education."

Wow! That's amazing, because I did the exact same thing on my census form, completely independently. If someone comes to the door and asks me my race, I will say "American" just like I wrote on the form, and I've asked my wife to do the same. I'm so tired of these racist SOBs with their "disparate impact" BS.

On another note, the New Yorker has a full page ad, for the second week in a row, instructing readers how to recognize and report housing discrimination. Because we all know how the New Yorker demographic is such a huge target of discrimination. Your tax dollars at work.

Harry Baldwin said...

John D said...Ultimately, blacks should have their own schools (administered and taught by blacks) so they would not be subjected to relentless white racism. That way they could behave and be disciplined however they saw fit. Make sure they get the same funding as white schools (hell, give 'em more, who cares, just give them their separate schools.

This seems like a good idea to me. Mandate that the black schools get 20-percent higher funding per student than the schools accommodating whites and Asians. In the end it would end up saving money.

It'll never happen, of course, but it's a good thought.

Kylie said...

Anonymous said: "Can you give an example of a time and a place when blacks, who were left to their own devices, did not behave badly? This is not a trick question, btw - I'm honestly curious."

No, I can't. And I didn't mean to imply that I could. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my earlier comment. I know it wasn't a trick question.

I suspect that the ethical considerations involved in behaving well when left to one's own devices (i.e., self-policing) are abstractions that require a certain level of intelligence to be understood and internalized.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Any normal boy with normal levels of energy can find himself disciplined, tagged as ADHD, and prescribed legal speed (which is what Ritalin and Adderall really are)."

I wonder. Is it possible that the widespread use of Ritalin as a pacifier for rambunctious school kids - a trend which has been going on for a good decade or more - has helped contribute to the methamphetamine epidemic? Maybe a lot of these meth addicts developed a predisposition toward speed addiction when they were,..... you know, doped up with speed by their parents and child shrinks.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

DUNCAN: She goes to Arlington [Virginia] public schools. That was why we chose where we live, it was the determining factor. That was the most important thing to me. My family has given up so much so that I could have the opportunity to serve; I didn't want to try to save the country's children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children's education."

i.e., jeopardize his children's education by subjecting them to the policies and ministrations of people like HIM.

Thanks for the quote, by the way.

Wad Studley said...

This is amusing: Here Reddit hipsters wrestle with the fact that one of their own was murdered by black gangstas.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bfi8o/video_our_fellow_redditor_andrew_graham_was/

It's difficult for some to condemn the murder because the perps are black.


Amusing? The comments on this are so unbelievable it makes my hair hurt. They blame it on the "War on Drugs". A couple of commenters with some sense note that it's racially motivated and has nothing to do with drugs, and they get branded as insensitive for using tragedy for pushing their 'racist' agenda.

Maybe one of the most unbelievable libtard collections of absurdity I've ever seen. Heaven help us - it's even worse than I thought.

Mike Courtman said...

"Any normal boy with normal levels of energy can find himself disciplined, tagged as ADHD, and prescribed legal speed (which is what Ritalin and Adderall really."

This sounds a bit wet and melodramatic, Adderall is specifically designed at huge expense to be slow release stimulant with limited abuse potential, and it gives you about the same 'rush' as a cup of coffee(part of the reason it was invented so low-life parents couldn't ground it down to make street drugs out of it).

Also it doesn't sedate, it switches on the switched-off frontal lobes, so it goes someway towards making the hyperactive, extroverted pain in the ass who's disrupting the learning of all the other kids, a tolerable presence in the classroom.

Perhaps if we still had corporal punishment, if impulsive people had fewer kids, and if there was common-sense streamed education, aggressive extroverts wouldn't be such a problem, but that's another issue.

As far as feminisation education goes, it can primarily be sumed in one word - internal assessment - boys prefer exams,since boys are lazier than girls and unlike girls use exam stress to help motivate themselves (who hasn't seen a female college student freak out in an exam).

Anonymous said...

l said...
Daniel A. Domenech and Randi Weingarten think the solution is to hire more staff for schools. How about that?

I saw a school full of racially discriminated against, economically challenged youths. They were literally swinging from the light fixtures, climbing in and out of the windows, and completely ignoring the staff. There were four teachers/aides for a room of 8 to 12 students. It was utter chaos. I was there five days a week teaching a martial arts class in the athletic unit.

That was an average day. More staff is not the answer. Discipline, accountability, and acknowledging hard truths are the answer.

Anonymous said...

I never got suspended, I never fought in the schoolyard, and I never got any respect.

Boxing needs to be brought to junior high schools. Fully regulated, Marquiss of Queensbury rules. Prevent knife fights.

Not kidding.

Anonymous said...

"This sounds a bit wet and melodramatic, Adderall is specifically designed at huge expense to be slow release stimulant with limited abuse potential, and it gives you about the same 'rush' as a cup of coffee(part of the reason it was invented so low-life parents couldn't ground it down to make street drugs out of it)."

Low-life parents? I wonder if you grew up in the same world I did. Abuse of rx speed was widespread amongst teens where I grew up, mostly by those that spent years legally doped up on the same stuff before that. I'm sure cocaine has the same rush as a cup of coffee if you take a low enough dose... and that heroin is like taking an asprin at a low enough dose... but that's really meaningless to point out.

Larissa said...

I like what Mike Courtman said. I have a son who has normal energy levels and no one has ever suggested I give him medication. Most typical boys, with high spirits are not being labeled anything.
Some boys (and a few girls) seem to lack basic impulse control and can be very unpleasant to be around. Other children often do not like to be around them either.

Larissa said...

Also, some interesting information given here on how the fights in black schools would tend to be more violent than the fights in white schools. I have no practical experience with that, but based on newspaper reports I would believe that to be true.

Anonymous said...

Mitch had the best comment I saw. He's a teacher,and he foundthat sending bad kids to the principle's office to sit and be bored worked.

I'm a game theorist,which helps in unexpected ways. Here is one, I think. COnsider Players, Actions,and Objectives. The Bad STudent is a player. His action choice is to be Good or Bad.They key is his objective. Does it include not getting suspended? I doubt it. Probably the opposite. As a direct effect, threatening to make a kid not go to school is like threatning Brer Rabbit with the the thorn bush, even for a good student. The good student, tho, does have a feared indirect effect--- Mom, and, especially, Dad. Blacks kids are less likely to have those indirect effects.

What boys without dads need is physical discipline at school. They don't get it-- yet another example of the liberal War on Blacks.

Anonymous said...

The other part of this that is forgotten is that the reason we have a zero tolerance for violence policy is that the schools need to worry about getting sued. If a Jew, Gay, or woman gets assualted the school stands to lose millions of dollars for failing to protect. That lawsuit will quickly get twisted into a racial or sexual discrimination lawsuit. If it is just a white boy no big deal. Therefore, a lot of the hazing and petty bullying that used to go on in school is now reacted to instantly. The problem is that blacks have impulse control problems.

Fellow Traveller said...

Thought you might want to see this item Mr Sailer: a member of the British House of Lords, Baroness Deech, will start a campaign in the coming week questioning the rising practice of first cousin marriage among immigrant communities of the UK - as reported by the Times of London on its web site. Nice to see one of your issues beginning to get coverage?

Darwin's Sh*tlist said...

Isn't the point of "zero tolerance" policies to remove the "racist" human element from discipline?

This is absolutely true. As I think about it, it seems there are basically three types of policy enforcement environments:

1) Management exercises broad judgment. In large institutions, public or private, this is rare.
2) Management doesn't exercise judgment. An example of this is zero tolerance.
3) Management exercises limited judgment, but policies strongly dictate how different factors are prioritized. An example of this is affirmative action.

When it comes to violence and law enforcement, NAM advocates can't get away with foisting (3) on the public, so they've opted for (2) over the last 20 years or so, hoping that their assumptions about the world were actually true. As it becomes clear they're not, look for back-door advocacy of (3). (1) will only become palatable again once the long-dreamt-of dream of a NAM majority ensures access to the levers of power.

David Davenport said...


boys prefer exams,since boys are lazier than girls


Boys are smarter than girls. Boys are smart enought to know the difference between performance that matters and mere busywork.


and unlike girls use exam stress to help motivate themselves

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

(who hasn't seen a female college student freak out in an exam).

That's a rather sexist, self-incriminating remark.

headache said...

I disagree that the NY is ignorant. I think they are being willful. The question is why, but for those who have been following your blog the answer is obvious.

Anonymous said...

"Has anybody else ever noticed how many passionate left-wing advocates tend to be homely?"

I would also assume almost everyone on this blog is unattractive and socially unsuccessful.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it would make sense to remove the unruly students from classes and give each of them one-on-one instruction.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"Perhaps it would make sense to remove the unruly students from classes and give each of them one-on-one instruction."

How will you find enough people willing to do the job? How many nice White ladies are going to want to be alone in a room with a 10th-grade, 6-ft., 180-lb. thug, trying to keep him on task long enough to master prime factorization?

I like the idea of schools with a Black principal, Black teachers and staff, given a budget 20% higher than all the other schools.
It's time the middle-class, college-educated Blacks were shamed into doing their duty of returning to the ghetto to mentor the next generation. After all, if Blacks learn differently, how can nice, White ladies, who only understand White learners, possibly teach Black kids? Only other Blacks could possibly understand well enough to teach them.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the point of "zero tolerance" policies to remove the "racist" human element from discipline?

If the school is ruthlessly crushing whites for minor infractions then, overall, the punishment of more serious black offenders will drowned out by the noise.

If discipline is more nuanced then racial disparities will become more noticible.

Im sure La Griffe had something to say about this when comparing incarceration rates between liberal and conservative states.

Anonymous said...

I would also assume almost everyone on this blog is unattractive and socially unsuccessful.

That might have been true ten or fifteen years ago, but, more recently, folks like me have been drawn into this discussion by the looming inevitability of our pending demographic catastrophe.

The times they are a-changin'.

Anonymous said...

So, who said the teachers assigned to one-to-one instruction with these troublemakers would be "nice white ladies"?

vmmbkioejdj said...

How about problem-schools just let kids watch TV, listen to music and dance, and play ball all day? They might behave better and even learn a thing or two from the Oprah show.

Maybe that should be the future of teaching. The talk show model. Involve the kids in Geraldo-esque discussions... such as...

1. Which NBA team is best
2. Is it cool to sell or use drugs
3. Who's hotter? Beyonce or Alicia?

It aint much of an eduction but it might involve students more than algebra or 19th century American literature.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"So, who said the teachers assigned to one-to-one instruction with these troublemakers would be "nice white ladies"?

Who else would you get? The kinds of men intelligent enough to remedial-teach these menaces can get jobs that pay much better than a one-on-one tutor typically gets.

Steve did a column once, suggesting schools hire former drill seargents as the high school discipline administrator. Okay. But there aren't enough of them to give all the little dears a one-on-one tutor for large portions of the day.

And there's also the problem, if you somehow did manage to find enough former White Marines dedicated to the calling, (White is assumed, in order to get the numbers), the minute one yelled at a precious yout' to drop and give him 20, the loony-lefties would be suing for disparate impact.

Harry Baldwin said...

Mike Courtman said...Adderall is specifically designed at huge expense to be slow release stimulant with limited abuse potential, and it gives you about the same 'rush' as a cup of coffee(part of the reason it was invented so low-life parents couldn't ground it down to make street drugs out of it).

From personal experience with a substance-abusing family member, I can assure you that grinding up and snorting Adderall is quite common among high school and college students. The medication has a street value and apparently does provide a high.

And yes, as Mr. Anon suggested, it does lead these kids to think using meth might be lots of fun.

Anonymous said...

Apparently we have the same problem in Toronto.

http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/2007/04/ontario-safe-schools-act-liberals-plan.html

Fifty years ago there were almost no black people in Canada. Then some genius in the government decided to import lots of them from the Caribbean or Somalia or some damn place.

Anonymous said...

No blacks in Canada,, then some genius in the government decided to import them,,,,

The name of this "genius" was Tom Kent and he himself was an immigrant too. He was never elected to any office by the people of Canada but made himself Prime Minister Lester Pearson's right-hand man. He was to him what Harry Hopkins was to FDR, another unelected imbecile who came to wield disastrous influence over a head of state (the west has its Rasputins too). The one time Kent did run for an elective office he was soundly rejected by the Canadian people. He got even. And then some. He dissolved the Canadian people and elected a new one.

Anonymous said...

Flunkin' Duncan is his name.

eh said...

To make the numbers look better, I'm sure they wouldn't have much trouble finding white kids who'd be glad to stay at home for a while whenever a black kid is suspended. Some phony reason, a little extra 'lunch money'. Problem solved.