Creationists in Med School?

[Promethean]

School zones (if they are properly designed by geographic proximity to the school) that just happen to have high concentrations of certain races aren't a problem. The problem that existed in racial segragetion (brown v education) was that race was used to deny access to certain schools. If all races are allowed legally to buy/rent in a zone then the eventual racial percentages do not matter. There is no virtue in trying to ensure a particular racial balance in a particular building, and it's dishonest of anyone to imply that people of one race living disproportionately in a neighborhood is in any way similar to 1950sish banning of races from schools.

If. This is the failing of your position. If all have equal access, then their choices define their destiny, and so no injustice has been done.

Unfortunately, you underestimate the inequity that precedes the choice making.

Legal protections are not necessarily enforced. One might lack the capacity or the resources to seek redress if what is legally allowed is not allowed in fact. There are still many places where oppression is still a thriving institution.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

It is a relief not to have to post things myself, but just to wander down to the end of the thread and find them there.

The "local governments" that were enforcing segregation are not some externally imposed force in those communities. Local governments are, even more so than larger state and national governments, generally comprised of the wealthiest, most empowered members of their communities, and they derive their authority from the support of the community at large. They ARE the shop owners and those who spend the most money in those shops. It is thus absurd to suggest that the government is a different entity than the market in those communities, and to believe that government would impose an agenda at odds with the aims of the market forces in that community.

To the extent that segregation was enforced by municipalities, that was done at the behest of the empowered white populations of those municipalities. I grew up in a town that still had de facto segregation, in spite of decades of attempts by the national government to protect the rights of all citizens. Market forces didn't make segregation go away there, because the majority of the locals still wanted it, and the minority didn't have the resources to fight back.

The market doesn't have morals. Letting the market sort things out is only fair if everyone gets the same shot at participating in it, if all things are equal. But all things are decidedly not equal, and the amoral market, allowed to serve as the final arbiter of human affairs, has no problem with creating outcomes that diminish human dignity and potential.

I find it so hard to understand, @sb247 , how a moral man such as yourself... a man who considers himself a follower of Christ, can have fallen in with the money changers, to trust in their capacity to dispense economic and political justice.

I don't have nearly the faith in humanities morals that you think I do. It's why I don't want govt to have power to enforce a rule on everyone. Govt is made up of the same flawed people that you want the govt to control so it should be weak. If govt goes wrong, men with guns refuse to let me do right (ie sell a sandwich to a black guy and a white guy). If we're all free to make our own decisions in a free market, I don't have to have the majority agree with me in order to do right. I just need to be free. 60% of the town can be horrible segregationalists.... But the other 40% can join me in making sandwiches for everyone.

The fact that local govts were able to pass laws refusing service to racial minorities is itself evidence that govt strong enough to make those laws is a bad idea. Who you make sandwiches for is not the proper jurisdiction of any govt

 

[deleted480308]

If. This is the failing of your position. If all have equal access, then their choices define their destiny, and so no injustice has been done.

Unfortunately, you underestimate the inequity that precedes the choice making.

Legal protections are not necessarily enforced. One might lack the capacity or the resources to seek redress if what is legally allowed is not allowed in fact. There are still many places where oppression is still a thriving institution.

Then the proper point to make (which they aren't) in the link would be "people are being banned based on their race from living in neighborhoods" or "schools are drawing their lines in irrational ways to exclude people solely on race". I would 100% abhor those things were they proven

Noting, "this school has a high percentage of minority students" is not a case improper racial segregation enforced by govt

 

[WingedOx]

If all races are allowed legally to buy/rent in a zone then the eventual racial percentages do not matter.

Holy sh-t does this ever ignore massive chunks of American urban history...

 

[deleted480308]

Holy sh-t does this ever ignore massive chunks of American urban history...

And those time periods were wrong and unjust. They are also irrelevent to the referenced story unless you happen to have some evidence that people are being governmentally barred from living in certain school zones....do you have such evidence?

 

[WingedOx]

And those time periods were wrong and unjust. They are also irrelevent to the referenced story unless you happen to have some evidence that people are being governmentally barred from living in certain school zones....do you have such evidence?

So it's only a problem if it's the government enforcing racial lines? You were perfectly ok with redlining? Ok with "community enforcement" of restricted covenants? Because the government had little if anything to do with those aside from making a concerted effort to look the other way.

Wow SB, I had no idea that you and Richard J. Daley had such similar views. You'd make a wonderful old school Chicago Democrat.

 

[Promethean]

And those time periods were wrong and unjust. They are also irrelevent to the referenced story unless you happen to have some evidence that people are being governmentally barred from living in certain school zones....do you have such evidence?

Making something legally permissible does not make it functionally possible, and if laws that protect rights are not enforced then those rights may not be exercised. The government need not bar people from living where they choose, only fail to fulfill its mandate to ensure that they have a real choice. If that failure is due to the inaction of the local government, that is an appropriate cause for intervention by state or federal government.

EDIT: Consider it a contract enforcement action. These school districts have taken state and federal funds that have come with strings attached. They have gotten away with ignoring those terms for decades, taking the money but ignoring mandates to desegregate.

As for your statement that "those time periods were wrong and unjust..." What would it take for you to consider that those time periods include today? Do you really think that we have reached the point where we can talk about racism purely in the past tense? Is segregation only wrong in your eyes when it is enforced by overt legislation, but acceptable when it the result of unchecked private discrimination?

I'm going to stop there, because I do think that you are generally a good person, and I'm not trying to trap you by asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?" But I am genuinely interested in how you can deny that systemic racism is very much alive and well, and that it creates an unequal starting line based on physical characteristics that don't have anything to do with potential. The best I can come up with is that you must think that only government has the power to impose harm... where bad things that happen without government intervention are the results of free choices and so somehow justifiable. Or I've completely misunderstood your position.

 

[deleted480308]

Making something legally permissible does not make it functionally possible, and if laws that protect rights are not enforced then those rights may not be exercised. The government need not bar people from living where they choose, only fail to fulfill its mandate to ensure that they have a real choice. If that failure is due to the inaction of the local government, that is an appropriate cause for intervention by state or federal government.

I support universal vouchers for primary education to help avoid risks of exclusion.

But specifically what cases would bar someone from a "real" choice?

 

[Promethean]

I support universal vouchers for primary education to help avoid risks of exclusion.

But specifically what cases would bar someone from a "real" choice?

So, if school choice is based on geography, then not having a real choice would mean not being able to live in certain neighborhoods. So, not being able to get a job that pays enough to afford a certain neighborhood. People are discriminated against in hiring decisions based upon race. It isn't supposed to happen, but it absolutely does. And you seem to believe that no one should be forced to hire someone they don't want to, so you would seem to support their right not to hire black people for no other reason than that they are black.

People are discriminated against when seeking loans for houses. It isn't supposed to happen, but it does. And your position that no one should be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to means that you would have to be in favor of that being permitted to happen.

People are discriminated against when seeking apartments, based upon race. You see the pattern.

That is what I mean when I say that not everyone has the same resources to make decisions, so they aren't really as free as people who aren't being systematically denied those resources and opportunities. And so, that isn't really freedom.

You can say that the free market would set this all right, but the fact that it is persisting is prima facie evidence that it does not do so in every instance.

 

[deleted480308]

So, if school choice is based on geography, then not having a real choice would mean not being able to live in certain neighborhoods. So, not being able to get a job that pays enough to afford a certain neighborhood. People are discriminated against in hiring decisions based upon race. It isn't supposed to happen, but it absolutely does. And you seem to believe that no one should be forced to hire someone they don't want to, so you would seem to support their right not to hire black people for no other reason than that they are black.

People are discriminated against when seeking loans for houses. It isn't supposed to happen, but it does. And your position that no one should be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to means that you would have to be in favor of that being permitted to happen.

People are discriminated against when seeking apartments, based upon race. You see the pattern.

That is what I mean when I say that not everyone has the same resources to make decisions, so they aren't really as free as people who aren't being systematically denied those resources and opportunities. And so, that isn't really freedom.

You can say that the free market would set this all right, but the fact that it is persisting is prima facie evidence that it does not do so in every instance.

I do believe that qualified customers have a way of creating willing sellers. If people want high end apartments and they are being blocked out by someone another builder will eventually fill that need.

But once again referencing that story that was linked...was any evidence of wrong doing presented other than the racial demographics of some of the schools? (Which isn't evidence of wrong doing?)

And to clarify, all racial discrimination is wrong doing regardless of legality.

 

[deleted407021]

Could we possibly keep this thread on topic, specifically discussing mystical vs scientific explanations of the Universe and life?

It's gone of the rails in a very SPF direction.

 

[WingedOx]

Could we possibly keep this thread on topic, specifically discussing mystical vs scientific explanations of the Universe and life?

It's gone of the rails in a very SPF direction.

"This thread is starting to smell like unwashed armpits. Can we go back to having it smell like farts?"

 

[deleted407021]

"This thread is starting to smell like unwashed armpits. Can we go back to having it smell like farts?"

1. What you got against farts?

2. There has been a valuable discussion had in this thread. Myths about evolution and other theories have been debunked and the details cleared up and the scientific process has been explained and put into context many times.

 

[Promethean]

I do believe that qualified customers have a way of creating willing sellers. If people want high end apartments and they are being blocked out by someone another builder will eventually fill that need.

But once again referencing that story that was linked...was any evidence of wrong doing presented other than the racial demographics of some of the schools? (Which isn't evidence of wrong doing?)

And to clarify, all racial discrimination is wrong doing regardless of legality.

The article in question does not spell out that these specific schools are still segregated because of systemic economic and social injustice. My assumptions about these issues come from personal experience growing up in a town that is still segregated. No one is talking about high end apartments. In the town I grew up in, all the black people lived in one area of town. There were equally run down white areas of the town, where the rents were just as cheap. But any black person who had tried to move to one of those areas would risk being beaten or killed, if they were even successful in obtaining a lease. There are still, right now, places in America like that. Desegregating schools is part of changing that.

You agree that racial discrimination is wrong. I hear you. But you still think that it should be legally permitted, do you not? You have stated that you believe that it is wrong and unacceptable to force someone to hire or otherwise do business with someone if they want to discriminate against that person, for whatever reason. So, you are saying now that racial discrimination is wrong. Is it that you think that the freedom to discriminate against a person based on race is more valuable than the right of that person to enjoy equal protection and opportunities as others, without regard to race?

 

[Promethean]

Could we possibly keep this thread on topic, specifically discussing mystical vs scientific explanations of the Universe and life?

It's gone of the rails in a very SPF direction.

To be fair, I did mistake it for an SPF thread. Mea Culpa.

Also, there is still a strain of the previous conversation here... a tangent, but it is there. We are arguing about the right to discriminate, whether it exists and what its boundaries might be. That directly relates back to whether it is appropriate to discriminate against people with certain religious beliefs, and whether it is acceptable for people with certain religious beliefs to use them as the basis to discriminate against others. For instance, is it ever acceptable for someone with strongly held religious beliefs to refuse patients, or to limit the options those patients have for receiving medical care, based on the religious beliefs of the provider. This, you see, links back directly to the idea of bible literalists in the medical profession.

 

[deleted480308]

The article in question does not spell out that these specific schools are still segregated because of systemic economic and social injustice. My assumptions about these issues come from personal experience growing up in a town that is still segregated. No one is talking about high end apartments. In the town I grew up in, all the black people lived in one area of town. There were equally run down white areas of the town, where the rents were just as cheap. But any black person who had tried to move to one of those areas would risk being beaten or killed, if they were even successful in obtaining a lease. There are still, right now, places in America like that. Desegregating schools is part of changing that.

You agree that racial discrimination is wrong. I hear you. But you still think that it should be legally permitted, do you not? You have stated that you believe that it is wrong and unacceptable to force someone to hire or otherwise do business with someone if they want to discriminate against that person, for whatever reason. So, you are saying now that racial discrimination is wrong. Is it that you think that the freedom to discriminate against a person based on race is more valuable than the right of that person to enjoy equal protection and opportunities as others, without regard to race?

I have a natural right to engage in voluntary trade with you if you are also voluntarily participating without a 3rd party trying to stop us

I do not have a natural right to force you into commerce with me against your will

 

[aim-agm]

I get it, it's one of those issues with no middle ground really. It's why I say that anyone finding the catholic hospitals to be abhorent and dangerous should open a hospital across the street

I'm not sure you understand the concept of money and that you must use large amounts of it in order to build and operate a hospital. These amounts of money are not accessible to most anyone in the population, particularly the people whose ability to get care is strongly impeded by local access to it.

I'm also not sure you understand the concept of time, in that it takes quite a lot of it before a property can be transformed into a functioning hospital.

 

[Promethean]

My value system places patient autonomy and duty to patient above my own private interests and beliefs. No matter what I think about a person, once they become my patient, I'm going to offer them the same care and compassion as if they were my own kin. That is the responsibility that accompanies the profession.

Generally, people who believe in a single, all powerful creator tend to also believe that they have an obligation to be obedient to the will of that being, one which far exceeds any duty toward any other person. So, if they believe that a certain action would be displeasing to that being, they are likely to refuse to do it, even if it harms a patient.

For the most part, religious people are good people who have benign intentions. But it never slips my mind that their values are not identical to my own. We can work together as long as our values are in alignment most of the time, but as others have said, I'm always aware of the potential that conflict could arise, should a situation arise where their devotion to their belief becomes incompatible with fulfilling their duty to the patient.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not sure you understand the concept of money and that you must use large amounts of it in order to build and operate a hospital. These amounts of money are not accessible to most anyone in the population, particularly the people whose ability to get care is strongly impeded by local access to it.

I'm also not sure you understand the concept of time, in that it takes quite a lot of it before a property can be transformed into a functioning hospital.

From a prior career I actually know exactly how much time and money it takes. If the catholic principles offend you so much you should start soliciting donations and hire a realtor

 

[aim-agm]

From a prior career I actually know exactly how much time and money it takes. If the catholic principles offend you so much you should start soliciting donations and hire a realtor

But the concept of donations directly contravenes the principals of the free market. However am I supposed to leverage the theoretical small profit of improving, even saving, the lives of pregnant women into huge sums of investments? I would appreciate if you could use your prior career experience to answer that question.

 

[Promethean]

I'm not sure you understand the concept of money and that you must use large amounts of it in order to build and operate a hospital. These amounts of money are not accessible to most anyone in the population, particularly the people whose ability to get care is strongly impeded by local access to it.

I'm also not sure you understand the concept of time, in that it takes quite a lot of it before a property can be transformed into a functioning hospital.

Another problem with the assertion that the market will fix everything, eventually, and that people who don't like being injured by denial of care should just build their own facility is that... or that "qualified customers will attract willing sellers..." is that component of time.

Time without receiving care inflicts harm. Time without adequate housing inflicts harm. It is intolerable for people to be denied access to necessities like income, health care, housing, education, etc. in the present because "eventually" the market forces will correct the problem. In that interim, while being refused services that are otherwise available to others, and before a free market alternative presents itself, incalculable and irreparable harm can be done.

The woman with the extrauterine pregnancy which the hospital refuses to terminate may not even survive a transfer to another, existing facility, let alone the building of a new one. The market cannot make her whole. It cannot undo the harm done by permitting discrimination for the sake of a narrow understanding of "freedom."

 

[Promethean]

The callous disregard for human suffering caused by waiting for the market to eventually find the solution is a big reason that I turned my back on libertarianism. It has some very useful ideas in it, but ultimately, it runs into this problem that the aims of the market are acquiring capital, not providing best outcomes for human beings.

That is especially a problem when libertarianism is applied to health care and human welfare. Consider profoundly intellectually and physically disabled people. They don't produce anything, and require such substantial resource inputs that they will never be "qualified customers." The lucky ones have families who are willing to sacrifice for their care, and many of the rest are able to benefit from living in a society just socialist enough that there are tax funded programs to just barely support their expensive, non productive lives.

Libertarianism doesn't make any provisions for such people. I've come to believe that, in its purest form, it is incompatible with holding human life in high regard. Fortunately, most people who consider themselves libertarian are not actually monstrous... they just don't consider the full implications of universal application of their ideals. They believe that everyone has equal access to the same options and opportunities that they do, so that failure to succeed is evidence of failure to try. It is the Just World Fallacy as politics.

 

[deleted480308]

But the concept of donations directly contravenes the principals of the free market. However am I supposed to leverage the theoretical small profit of improving, even saving, the lives of pregnant women into huge sums of investments? I would appreciate if you could use your prior career experience to answer that question.

There is nothing contrary to free markets about donations. Voluntary donations are extremely free market.

 

[aim-agm]

The callous disregard for human suffering caused by waiting for the market to eventually find the solution is a big reason that I turned my back on libertarianism.

Part of the immaturity of libertarianism is how wholly it focuses on dynamics and how little they consider kinetics. Just because something is (supposedly) favorable in a free market system doesn't mean that state will be reached soon, if ever, because of barriers that must be surmounted, unstable transition states, etc. .

 

[Promethean]

I have a natural right to engage in voluntary trade with you if you are also voluntarily participating without a 3rd party trying to stop us

I do not have a natural right to force you into commerce with me against your will

I think I see where the disconnect is. You don't appreciate that these transactions aren't happening uninfluenced by setting. Indeed, they happen in a large and complex society held together by a code of laws. We have collectively determined, through our elected representatives, that we don't want to live in a nation where it is acceptable to discriminate against people on the basis of demographics.

Choosing to engage publicly in commerce here means accepting those terms. You can refuse those terms... no one is forcing you to engage in trade.

What you may not do is conduct your business publicly while discriminating against some members of the public. You do not have a right to ignore laws because they interfere with how you would conduct yourself if you lived in a setting without laws.

 

[deleted480308]

I think I see where the disconnect is. You don't appreciate that these transactions aren't happening uninfluenced by setting. Indeed, they happen in a large and complex society held together by a code of laws. We have collectively determined, through our elected representatives, that we don't want to live in a nation where it is acceptable to discriminate against people on the basis of demographics.

Choosing to engage publicly in commerce here means accepting those terms. You can refuse those terms... no one is forcing you to engage in trade.

What you may not do is conduct your business publicly while discriminating against some members of the public. You do not have a right to ignore laws because they interfere with how you would conduct yourself if you lived in a setting without laws.

Would you have said the same to those trying to serve black customers in the legally enforced segregated south?

 

[BlackDynamite]

Derp derp derp derp


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Stagg737]

but I did some quick googling. The hospital says the council of bishops does allow for treatments to the mother for illness/risk of life even if they could harm the child. What they don't allow for is the active killing of a child that still has the potential to reach viability. Out of curiosity, do you have an instance of an emergent, that hour, type of situation in which Trinity didn't provide services and someone died? (admitting I still don't think anyone should be forced to do anything, just testing the reality of the premise)

I'm sure that it would go over really well in the courtroom that a mother who could have lived ended up dying because an emergency abortion to a "potentially viable" fetus was denied. Especially if the fetus was in the first trimester or if the mother leaves the hospital and dies while trying to go somewhere else. Something tells me the state licensing boards would be getting involved on that one...

And those time periods were wrong and unjust. They are also irrelevent to the referenced story unless you happen to have some evidence that people are being governmentally barred from living in certain school zones....do you have such evidence?

Ox already touched on it, but if you're not familiar just look at the Chicago Public School system and try and tell anyone from that city that racial segregation isn't happening there.

Derp derp derp derp

Deep...

 

[deleted480308]

I'm sure that it would go over really well in the courtroom that a mother who could have lived ended up dying because an emergency abortion to a "potentially viable" fetus was denied. Especially if the fetus was in the first trimester or if the mother leaves the hospital and dies while trying to go somewhere else. Something tells me the state licensing boards would be getting involved on that one...

If the state licensing boards were to require a violation conscience, they would be wrong. Physicians have as much right to voluntary self-determination as patients

Ox already touched on it, but if you're not familiar just look at the Chicago Public School system and try and tell anyone from that city that racial segregation isn't happening there.

Chicago is a corrupt mess so nothing there would surprise me. Can you articulate specifically or link what you are referencing?

I'll repeat that I support universal vouchers so parents can't be artificially subjected to one crappy school.

 

[Promethean]

Would you have said the same to those trying to serve black customers in the legally enforced segregated south?

1) Touche' - Sorry I wandered away to other arguments before working through this one more fully with you. I'll have to consider this point further.

2) I'm not aware of any specific instances of, for example, lunch counters trying to desegregate themselves prior to civil disobedience by the public. If you have any examples, I'd be fascinated to hear them.

I hope that by now it doesn't need to be said, but just in case: I am quite fond of you, and to the extent that I take off my gloves when we argue, it is because I respect you and think that you can handle a no-holds-barred Socratic throwdown. You give me fodder for reassessing my positions. I hope that it does you a similar kindness.

 

[deleted480308]

1) Touche' - Sorry I wandered away to other arguments before working through this one more fully with you. I'll have to consider this point further.

2) I'm not aware of any specific instances of, for example, lunch counters trying to desegregate themselves prior to civil disobedience by the public. If you have any examples, I'd be fascinated to hear them.

I hope that by now it doesn't need to be said, but just in case: I am quite fond of you, and to the extent that I take off my gloves when we argue, it is because I respect you and think that you can handle a no-holds-barred Socratic throwdown. You give me fodder for reassessing my positions. I hope that it does you a similar kindness.

Whether you prefer the biblical "iron sharpens iron" or the hip hop "real recognize real"....either applies

 

[deleted480308]

1) Touche' - Sorry I wandered away to other arguments before working through this one more fully with you. I'll have to consider this point further.

2) I'm not aware of any specific instances of, for example, lunch counters trying to desegregate themselves prior to civil disobedience by the public. If you have any examples, I'd be fascinated to hear them.

I hope that by now it doesn't need to be said, but just in case: I am quite fond of you, and to the extent that I take off my gloves when we argue, it is because I respect you and think that you can handle a no-holds-barred Socratic throwdown. You give me fodder for reassessing my positions. I hope that it does you a similar kindness.

#2. Sadly, anecdotal stories from an aging grandmother don't count as evidence. I would however propose that the local municipalities which enacted bans on serving minorities would have likely passed those laws in response to something (either some businesses already serving both races or about to)

 

[Stagg737]

Chicago is a corrupt mess so nothing there would surprise me. Can you articulate specifically or link what you are referencing?

I'll repeat that I support universal vouchers so parents can't be artificially subjected to one crappy school.

There's a lot of issues. Closing of mostly schools which are black schools. Redistribution of the non-black students to other schools. Distribution of black students to other all-black schools which are miles away when there are other non-black public schools far closer. Similar things done to Latino families as well. There are quite a few documentaries about it, and I believe HBO did a multi-episode mini-series on the current issues with the CPS about a year ago. I also have several friends from high school that now work for the CPS as teachers and hearing them talk about it is just depressing.

Just google racism in Chicago Public Schools or CPS Documentary, you'll find a plethora of articles and sources.

 

[deleted480308]

There's a lot of issues. Closing of mostly schools which are black schools. Redistribution of the non-black students to other schools. Distribution of black students to other all-black schools which are miles away when there are other non-black public schools far closer. Similar things done to Latino families as well. There are quite a few documentaries about it, and I believe HBO did a multi-episode mini-series on the current issues with the CPS about a year ago. I also have several friends from high school that now work for the CPS as teachers and hearing them talk about it is just depressing.

Just google racism in Chicago Public Schools or CPS Documentary, you'll find a plethora of articles and sources.

That sounds like it sucks. If it's as you describe it's the kind of thing I've been specifically saying is bad and that the govt can't be doing. Look into the Friedman foundation to support programs that allow kids to escape these types of situations... http://www.edchoice.org/

 

[jdh71]

And here we meet the solid brick wall with a giant Ron Swanson face spray painted on it.

this was a pretty good one

I lawled

but he's got a point

 

[BlackDynamite]

But what does the evidence say?

Show me the numbers.

Etc. etc.




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Mr Roboto]

.

 

[deleted480308]

Did you read the article? The school district was designed to promote racial segregation. It wasn't that they "just so happened" to do it. And when the justice department tried to desegregate, the city said that forcing desegregation would lead to white families abandoning the public schools for private schools. Because they're racists.

I did read the article. It says that some of the schools, separated geographically still have high levels of certain racial demographics (either black/white). What it doesn't do is show a map of some illogical school zone. (have you seen the craziness that is some of the congressional district mapping?) If they can show that the zones are designed illogical based on geography, then I'm all for fixing that because race shouldn't be a factor in designing school zones at all.

But the article doesn't prove in any way that the zones are designed on race. It shows that some schools have higher percentages of certain races, which isn't evidence of wrong doing. It's evidence of racial groups not 100% evenly distributing across a school district in terms of the home's location. I'm not in favor of driving kids past the closest schools to them just to make sure they don't have people who look like them in class. Public school should be based on geography, with full vouchers offered so those with crappy school districts get to escape and pursue private education while taking their tax funding with them.

 

[Mr Roboto]

I did read the article. It says that some of the schools, separated geographically still have high levels of certain racial demographics (either black/white). What it doesn't do is show a map of some illogical school zone. (have you seen the craziness that is some of the congressional district mapping?) If they can show that the zones are designed illogical based on geography, then I'm all for fixing that because race shouldn't be a factor in designing school zones at all.

But the article doesn't prove in any way that the zones are designed on race. It shows that some schools have higher percentages of certain races, which isn't evidence of wrong doing. It's evidence of racial groups not 100% evenly distributing across a school district in terms of the home's location. I'm not in favor of driving kids past the closest schools to them just to make sure they don't have people who look like them in class. Public school should be based on geography, with full vouchers offered so those with crappy school districts get to escape and pursue private education while taking their tax funding with them.

Sorry, I replied without noticing the additional page of comments. The subject had been thoroughly hashed out so I removed the post.

 

[jdh71]

I did read the article. It says that some of the schools, separated geographically still have high levels of certain racial demographics (either black/white). What it doesn't do is show a map of some illogical school zone. (have you seen the craziness that is some of the congressional district mapping?) If they can show that the zones are designed illogical based on geography, then I'm all for fixing that because race shouldn't be a factor in designing school zones at all.

But the article doesn't prove in any way that the zones are designed on race. It shows that some schools have higher percentages of certain races, which isn't evidence of wrong doing. It's evidence of racial groups not 100% evenly distributing across a school district in terms of the home's location. I'm not in favor of driving kids past the closest schools to them just to make sure they don't have people who look like them in class. Public school should be based on geography, with full vouchers offered so those with crappy school districts get to escape and pursue private education while taking their tax funding with them.

Exactly. Too many folks take an unexplained variance and attempt to drive the racist truck right through it. What other confounding factors exist and have these been addressed? Until this is spelled out, all people have done is the underpants gnome argument.

1. Find currently unexplained statistical racial difference
2. ?????
3. Racism!!!

 

[WingedOx]

That sounds like it sucks. If it's as you describe it's the kind of thing I've been specifically saying is bad and that the govt can't be doing. Look into the Friedman foundation to support programs that allow kids to escape these types of situations... http://www.edchoice.org/

The issues with Chicago schools would require a post that would cause even Nutmeg would say "whoa there, TLDR", but to say there's no "choice" in the Chicago school district couldn't be further from the truth. The religious orgs are excluded (they'd never survive court challenges if they wanted in, anyway), but just about anyone else with the money was allowed in during our city's charter school free for all when our wonderful hedge fund manager-lead board of education decided that all of the woes of low income education could be magically solved by "competition."

 

[deleted480308]

The issues with Chicago schools would require a post that would cause even Nutmeg would say "whoa there, TLDR", but to say there's no "choice" in the Chicago school district couldn't be further from the truth. The religious orgs are excluded (they'd never survive court challenges if they wanted in, anyway), but just about anyone else with the money was allowed in during our city's charter school free for all when our wonderful hedge fund manager-lead board of education decided that all of the woes of low income education could be magically solved by "competition."

1. the religious schools shouldn't be excluded from voucher programs

2. Any charter program that is worse than the corresponding public school a child is assigned to simply won't maintain enrollment and will disappear. By definition any charter with a waiting list is considered better by the local parents than the public school. Are you implying that somehow voucher programs make it worse?

 

[WingedOx]

Any charter program that is worse than the corresponding public school a child is assigned to simply won't maintain enrollment and will disappear.

In theory this happens. And you can claim that this is what SHOULD happen until you're blue in the face... In reality though, it hasn't. CPS has had to swoop in and say "enough" for schools that are failing to meet already low standards yet aren't hurting for enrollment, and every time they do, there's blowback from parents.

The problem with the idea is that the assumption is made that people will made education decisions rationally and not based on fancy marketing. The adult education market should tell us that's simply not the case. How many patients have you had over the years that are taking out loans for schools like DeVry, Everest, etc. for programs that can be had at the local community college for a fraction of the cost? That's all fine when the students bear the burden and debt of their decisions, but not so much when it's my property taxes funding your idea.

 

[deleted480308]

In theory this happens. And you can claim that this is what SHOULD happen until you're blue in the face... In reality though, it hasn't. CPS has had to swoop in and say "enough" for schools that are failing to meet already low standards yet aren't hurting for enrollment, and every time they do, there's blowback from parents.

The problem with the idea is that the assumption is made that people will made education decisions rationally and not based on fancy marketing. The adult education market should tell us that's simply not the case. How many patients have you had over the years that are taking out loans for schools like DeVry, Everest, etc. for programs that can be had at the local community college for a fraction of the cost? That's all fine when the students bear the burden and debt of their decisions, but not so much when it's my property taxes funding your idea.

I'm all for ending all tax funded education and letting people fend for themselves. I have to tone down my libertarianism to get to vouchers haha......but I do find it odd that a proven crappy school district gets to stay open but the charters schools can't

 

[Crayola227]

letting people fend for themselves?

there's the cohort of parents that use school as free daycare and are glad to keep sending the kids

and a cohort that wouldn't bother sending them anymore if they weren't forced to
and a bunch paying for it that would stop if they weren't forced to pay for it

I remember reading what a hard sell it was back in the prairie days of 'Murica
taxing it, making it "free" and legally required was the only way to convince such families to take Daddy's little corn-picker out of the field and learning arithmetic

for some school is the only hope for some of those kids and the only reason anyone even bothers to bathe them, to avoid legal trouble

 

[deleted480308]

letting people fend for themselves?

there's the cohort of parents that use school as free daycare and are glad to keep sending the kids

and a cohort that wouldn't bother sending them anymore if they weren't forced to
and a bunch paying for it that would stop if they weren't forced to pay for it

I remember reading what a hard sell it was back in the prairie days of 'Murica
taxing it, making it "free" and legally required was the only way to convince such families to take Daddy's little corn-picker out of the field and learning arithmetic

for some school is the only hope for some of those kids and the only reason anyone even bothers to bathe them, to avoid legal trouble

Like I said, I tone down the libertarianism to arrive at vouchers....but as the descendant of two "would have been arrested today for truancy" families, that farm upbringing isn't as bad as everyone claims

 

[Crayola227]

Like I said, I tone down the libertarianism to arrive at vouchers....but as the descendant of two "would have been arrested today for truancy" families, that farm upbringing isn't as bad as everyone claims

In retrospect I value that farm upbringing, I'm just glad it was interrupted by M-F 8-3 periods of learning. Still plenty of time left to hay the horses, feed the animals, and collect the chicken eggs in the am and eve.

I was lucky it was a hobby farm that supplemented our poverty diet and gave us a property tax break, and not a livelihood or that would have been a lot more work.

At some point I did have to tell the parents I couldn't keep up with pre-med and help as much on the farm. That was a sad day.

 

[Promethean]

Like I said, I tone down the libertarianism to arrive at vouchers....but as the descendant of two "would have been arrested today for truancy" families, that farm upbringing isn't as bad as everyone claims

I did mean to give you props for making an allowance for education at public expense. That is big of you, not to think that kids whose parents can't or won't shouldn't just be turned loose into the streets. Could it be that you appreciate that some things provide so much benefit to all (such as an at least minimally educated workforce, the absence of swarms of illiterate urchins getting up to no good during business hours) that they are worth funding collectively?

As for that farm upbringing... it all depends on which version of it you got. Mine was the one where being secluded up in the hills made it easier for my racist, religious nut grandfather to beat and otherwise abuse his large family of kids. Public school, crappy as it was, was my salvation, because it gave me some opportunity to get away and to find out that what I was enduring wasn't normal. It probably wasn't the place that I was going to receive the best possible education, and it was probably substandard for a lot of kids in my class who could have had something better. But for me, it was my only lifeline.

That is why it matters not to leave everyone to just fend for themselves. Even if you want to write off adults as having made their own choices (ignoring that choices are informed by context and opportunity,) kids are different. They didn't choose to be born, they didn't choose the families of their origin, or what kind of upbringing they would be subjected to. I think it is an obligation and an opportunity, to provide some minimal baseline of support to children, to give them a fair chance to become adults who can make their own mistakes. All of them, not just the fortunate ones.

 

[Demosthenes1]

As a person who grew up in the hyper-conservative branch of a Pentecostal church and would probably be considered a "militant atheist" I can say that it's simply better to ignore them in their entirety.
As doctors it is not necessary for them to put stock in proper scientific theory. As long as they aren't totally rejecting the bases for modern medical practice, and aren't harassing their patients with religious discourse, let them continue to exist in their literature-based fantasy land.
What I worry about are the researchers who blatantly try to undermine scientific thought with religious bias (I'm sure you've seen the "results" from that recent study on the "existence of the afterlife.")
Those people are who I see as dangerous.
At this point, the universe and it's origins won't change because of someone's beliefs in a book, nor will the origins of life on Earth.

 

[WingedOx]

I'm all for ending all tax funded education and letting people fend for themselves. I have to tone down my libertarianism to get to vouchers haha......but I do find it odd that a proven crappy school district gets to stay open but the charters schools can't

That's the other thing about Chicago, CPS has some of the best public schools in Illinois. If I lived exactly one block north of where I do now, the local elementary school would be top notch and on par with any other in the wealthier suburbs. The local school for my old place was also outstanding. The magnet schools (done by weighted lottery based on your location) are even better. The magnet high schools have to routinely kick kids out when they find out they don't actually live in the city. (sidenote, but Bruce Rauner, our billionaire fund manager Laffer curve disciple governor used his clout to get his daughter into CPS's Payton Prep despite the fact he lived in one of the wealthier suburban districts)

It also of course has schools that are barely hanging on. CPS has been a laboratory of "what happens when we let some rich white guy with a TED talk about how to revolutionize education for low income/minority students actually put his ideas into practice". Though ironically, those ideas only ever get put into place in south and west side schools where the parents don't have the political clout to say 'no'. The neighborhood elementary and high schools for my address are former "turnaround" schools, which meant they were taken over my a nonprofit that was the brainchild of one of our city's many retired capital managers, that neuters the local school council, and lets the outside group have all say in hiring principals and school policy. The "turnaround" group operated on the pitch that "low income and poverty is no excuse for poor educational results." Of course their test scores still suck...