Do you approve or disapprove of segregation academies for white students?

[Mockingbird]

25 minutes ago, DConnell said:

Because "separate" is okay as long as you're the one doing the separating? Sorry. but I believe that racism will never be ended if all sides continue to wall themselves up from other viewpoints and cultures. I consider BET, all-black colleges, etc. just as racist and - dare I say stupid - as the white segregation schools Mockingbird is talking about. You can't end racism by force, you can't end it by blocking out others.

  

 You need exposure to and understanding of "the other guy". I too commend Mockingbird for an interesting discussion topic, but I do feel he's being too narrow in his view of the subject, though that's based on the article. To be an honest discussion, any debate on the topic of white segregation also needs to discuss the black counterpart. And if "white segregation schools" are a bad thing (which I agree they are) then how are the all-black schools any better? How do they promote true equality, understanding, harmony between races? Why is it terrible when white do it (and I agree) but not bad when blacks do it?

The reason that historically black colleges and universities exist is that, because of segregation at the time (before the Civil Right Acts of 1964), blacks couldn't get into predominantly white institutions of higher-learning.

 

If blacks at the time has no trouble getting into white colleges and universities, there would have been no need for these historically black colleges and universities.

 

[trag3dy]

2 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

The reason that historically black colleges and universities exist is that, because of segregation at the time (before the Civil Right Acts of 1964), blacks couldn't get into predominantly white institutions of higher-learning.

 

If blacks at the time has no trouble getting into white colleges and universities, there would have been no need for these historically black colleges and universities.

 

I'm taking a page out of your book...

 

"So what you're saying is..." that it's okay for there to be black only schools. But not white only schools. Because that would be racist.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. That's the only thing I can get out of all your posts because you haven't actually responded to anything else.

[mrchetsteadman]

1 minute ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Let's see...

 

"I came on today to scope out any Humble Bundle deals and came across this topic and it reminded me why I stopped coming here for debates. Some people live in a bubble of ignorance and refuse to pop it."

"This entire comment is ignorant and the time it will take to explain isn't worth it. Not that YOU aren't worth it, but I don't have the time."

 

Just because you didn't aim it at a specific person, it doesn't give you immunity to what we all know you meant...  Calling a comment ignorant is equal to calling the person ignorant by association.

 

Instead of deflecting to meaningless semantics, how about you actually address the comments?  Clearly you do have the time...

 

I did, but I don't anymore. I enjoyed what you were doing because I saw it coming from a mile away and it was a bit nostalgic. You're too intelligent to miss my point so it was clearly on purpose. It's why I didn't debate, just responded. You're able to go from premise to conclusion when you attempt to make a point so when someone lays out a premise clearly, and you miss the conclusion, it's not because you don't get it, you're having fun. I get it. You don't think I said what I said on purpose? Literally every single word you quoted? Maybe not EVERY word but close enough. It was to prove a point. You were able to come to a conclusion of what I meant based on an abstract comment with a broad premise. Why not apply that same logic to what @Mockingbird is saying?

You said this; "Show us proof that these schools purposely deny black people" but your brain says this; "Just because you didn't aim it at a specific person, it doesn't give you immunity to what we all know you meant" to which I say this; "Just because a school didn't completely deny admission to a specific group of people, it doesn't give them immunity to what we all know they are trying to do". Your problem is you don't believe your own argument. This seems to be a game to you which is perfectly fine but engaging with you only leads down a rabbit hole of logical fallacies. It's like saying nothing matters since we all die anyway. That point can be argued successfully no matter the topic but it's not a genuine argument. That sir, is what I have learned over the years and I thank people like you for that. What some people take seriously, people like you don't care about which side is right or wrong, you just want to argue. That must be lonely.

[Mockingbird]

4 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

I'm taking a page out of your book...

 

"So what you're saying is..." that it's okay for there to be black only schools. But not white only schools. Because that would be racist.

  

 Correct me if I'm wrong. That's the only thing I can get out of all your posts because you haven't actually responded to anything else.

These historically black colleges and universities were founded because blacks could get into traditional white colleges and universities (as a result of segregation).

 

Notice the emphasize.

 

They were not founded to excluded white students.

 

You could be white and enroll in historically black colleges and universities.

 

Bluefield State College is 86% white

 

West Virginia State University is 80% white

 

Both of these are historically black colleges and universities.

[mrchetsteadman]

10 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Why are you nitpicking completely meaningless details?  Why do the details on the formation of the school have any meaning today?  You're yet to provide any proof that your segregation claims are true today.

You keep changing the topic and refuse to respond to any of the comments that call you out on your flawed logic...  If you're going to start a discussion, at least keep it on topic.  Deflecting when you get cornered is such a childish tactic...

Okay, one more. I'll check back for your answer lol.

 

Prove they are not. If a city is 79% black (arbitrary number) but a school in that city is 1% black (another arbitrary number), what is the reason for the discrepancy? Are you implying that 78% of black students aren't smart enough to get into the school? If so, based on what?

[adrynalyne]

1 hour ago, Rippleman said:

its just you guys, the SAME guys from the trump thread, over and over and over and over and over again on ANY topic.

More like you do the same thing there. 

[Emn1ty]

46 minutes ago, mrchetsteadman said:

Prove they are not. If a city is 79% black (arbitrary number) but a school in that city is 1% black (another arbitrary number), what is the reason for the discrepancy? Are you implying that 78% of black students aren't smart enough to get into the school? If so, based on what?

Are you implying that the only reason this could be the case is because of racism? Or are you implying that schools (and by extension most organizations) should have a racial makeup that matches the local demographics?

[metallithrax]

Ok, so I don't normally post in these sort of threads nowadays but, Mockingbird, when you post a list as proof of something don't use stuff that clearly shows something that is opposite of what you are trying to convey.

 

I (like others) searched some of the schools you listed and found photos showing minority students.  I know you said they have to take some to keep their status, but doesn't this go against what you are trying to prove?

 

Also, the 3rd one I searched closed 8 years ago and you also stated that one wasn't open anymore.  Really?  Using closed schools to try and prove something.  I am not posting this to have a go at you, more to say that if you are trying to prove something make sure your "proof" is solid.

 

Personally, I don't doubt that racial profiling happens in schools in the US, just as it probably does in some in the UK (and other countries).  

Edited December 27, 2018 by metallithrax

[mrchetsteadman]

14 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Are you implying that the only reason this could be the case is because of racism? Or are you implying that schools (and by extension most organizations) should have a racial makeup that matches the local demographics?

 

Should they not?

[DConnell Member]

6 minutes ago, mrchetsteadman said:

 

Should they not?

So students (or employees/members of an organization) should have to worry about being kicked out if the demographics shift away from their group?

 

If the match happens naturally, fine. But a school or organization should not be forced to adjust its makeup to match.

 

Making sure you match the local demographics is a stupid reason to enroll/reject someone. It should be based on academic merit.

[mrchetsteadman]

Just now, DConnell said:

So students (or employees/members of an organization) should have to worry about being kicked out if the demographics shift away from their group?

 

Why would they be kicked out in a free market? What if the best person for the job comes from a different demographic? 

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, mrchetsteadman said:

Should they not?

Lets say this, what if there was a region that is 80% white demographically, but there was a school with 80% black students. Should that school be forced to replace 60% of their black students with white students so they can match the demographic makeup of the area?

[metallithrax]

3 minutes ago, DConnell said:

So students (or employees/members of an organization) should have to worry about being kicked out if the demographics shift away from their group?

 

If the match happens naturally, fine. But a school or organization should not be forced to adjust its makeup to match.

 

Making sure you match the local demographics is a stupid reason to enroll someone. It should be based on academic merit.

Agreed.

 

It is like about how there aren't enough female CEO's etc in business or minority managers in sports.  All appointments should be based on ability/qualifications and not anything else.

[mrchetsteadman]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

Lets say this, what if there was a region that is 80% white demographically, but there was a school with 80% black students. Should that school be forced to replace 60% of their black students with white students so they can match the demographic makeup of the area?

False premise. I don't recall anyone advocating force. What if 70% of the black students graduate, wouldn't the school then match the shift in demographics? What are the underlying factors that created that statistical discrepancy?

[Mockingbird]

37 minutes ago, metallithrax said:

Ok, so I don't normally post in these sort of threads nowadays but, Mockingbird, when you post a list as proof of something don't use stuff that clearly shows something that is opposite of what you are trying to convey.

 

I (like others) searched some of the schools you listed and found photos showing minority students.  I know you said they have to take some to keep their status, but doesn't this go against what you are trying to prove?

  

Also, the 3rd one I searched closed 8 years ago and you also stated that one wasn't open anymore.  Really?  Using closed schools to try and prove something.  I am not posting this to have a go at you, more to say that if you are trying to prove something make sure your "proof" is solid.

 

Personally, I don't doubt that racial profiling happens in schools in the US, just as it does in some in the UK.  

So let's talk about Indianola Academy, because it's mentioned specifically in the article and so we have a lot more information about it.

 

Indianola Academy is 1% black.

 

Indianola, Mississippi is 79% black.

 

These segregation academies were forced to accept black students as a result of Runyon v. McCrary (otherwise they would lose their tax exemption status).

 

That said, with so few black students, these academies are still de facto functioning as segregation academies while doing the minimum to comply with the laws (accepting a token number of black students).

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Can you really say that Indianola Academy is no longer a segregation academy because it accepts a token number of black students to be in compliant with the laws?

Edited December 27, 2018 by Mockingbird

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, mrchetsteadman said:

False premise. I don't recall anyone advocating force. What if 70% of the black students graduate, wouldn't the school then match the shift in demographics? What are the underlying factors that created that statistical discrepancy?

There are many, preference of school. Affordability of tuition. Academic performance and background of the student. Discretion of the school to admit one student over another (for a variety of reasons). I would argue probably the most important is affordability, since economic status is usually the key driver in most of these scenarios.

[mrchetsteadman]

3 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

There are many, preference of school. Affordability of tuition. Academic performance and background of the student. Discretion of the school to admit one student over another (for a variety of reasons). I would argue probably the most important is affordability, since economic status is usually the key driver in most of these scenarios.

So you're saying, if I follow your logic, that in a 80% white region, the reason that 80% of the students at a particular school are black is because the white students are too poor to attend said school? Or you are saying that the black students are too poor to attend another school so they are stuck in a concentrated area?

[Emn1ty]

 

1 minute ago, mrchetsteadman said:

So you're saying, if I follow your logic, that in a 80% white region, the reason that 80% of the students at a particular school are black is because the white students are too poor to attend said school? Or you are saying that the black students are too poor to attend another school so they are stuck in a concentrated area?

That could be correct, especially if most of the white students attend public schools and not private ones (as those are state/federally funded and do not have tuition).

As far as Indianola, Mississippi. I wonder what the average income by race is there (as nationally African Americans make about 65% of what Caucasians make). This could be totally different on such a local level but I can't seem to find such statistics on the city. However, based on the breakdown in the wiki article it seems pretty much all African Americans are in public schools, while all White students are in private (specifically Indianola Academy).

On top of the requirement of being in the top 30% of students, there is $4,000-$5000/year in tuition plus other expenses. The average income in the city is $26,479. Looking at that, on average just to attend people need to be spending 15% of their income in the best case a year to send them there. Putting that even more in perspective, the average home price in Indianola is ~$86,000. So this is an incredible expense to the majority of people there.

[mrchetsteadman]

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

On top of the requirement of being in the top 30% of students, there is $4,000-$5000/year in tuition plus other expenses. The average income in the city is $26,479. Looking at that, on average just to attend people need to be spending 15% of their income in the best case a year to send them there. Putting that even more in perspective, the average home price in Indianola is ~$86,000. So this is an incredible expense to the majority of people there.

Is that by happenstance?

[Mockingbird]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

 

That could be correct, especially if most of the white students attend public schools and not private ones (as those are state/federally funded and do not have tuition).

As far as Indianola, Mississippi. I wonder what the average income by race is there (as nationally African Americans make about 65% of what Caucasians make). This could be totally different on such a local level but I can't seem to find such statistics on the city. However, based on the breakdown in the wiki article it seems pretty much all African Americans are in public schools, while all White students are in private (specifically Indianola Academy).

On top of the requirement of being in the top 30% of students, there is $4,000-$5000/year in tuition plus other expenses. The average income in the city is $26,479. Looking at that, on average just to attend people need to be spending 15% of their income in the best case a year to send them there. Putting that even more in perspective, the average home price in Indianola is ~$86,000. So this is an incredible expense to the majority of people there.

Indianola Academy is 98% white

 

Gentry High School is 98% black

 

They are both located in Indianola, MS.

[Chris Graham]

Just now, Mockingbird said:

Indianola Academy is 98% white

 

Gentry High School is 98% black

 

They are both located in Indianola, MS.

One is free, the other cost money.

 

That alone should show why there is a huge difference between the two.

[Mockingbird]

3 minutes ago, Chris Graham said:

One is free, the other cost money.

 

That alone should show why there is a huge difference between the two.

So all white people in Indianola, MS are wealthy and all black people in Indianola are needy?

[DConnell Member]

20 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

So let's talk about Indianola Academy, because it's mentioned specifically in the article and so we have a lot more information about it.

 

Indianola Academy is 1% black.

 

Indianola, Mississippi is 79% black.

 

These segregation academies were forced to accept black students as a result of Runyon v. McCrary (otherwise they would lose their tax exemption status).

 

That said, with so few black students, these academies are still de facto functioning as segregation academies while doing the minimum to comply with the laws (accepting a token number of black students).

I guess I missed the spot in the article where it showed a breakdown of applicants by race. You can't make that conclusion without knowing how many black applicants there were. Does that 1% black enrollment represent 100% of the black applicants? 70%? 10%? If blacks aren't enrolling, for fear of being marginalized for being different, it's not like the school can force black kids to enroll. (I experienced such marginalization due to being the poor kid at Devon Prep all those years ago.)

 

I suppose one measure of whether it's a "segregation academy" is whether the school is doing anything to encourage non-white applications. I don't recall if that was touched upon in the article ...

 

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that the numbers don't really give a full picture.

[Emn1ty]

5 minutes ago, mrchetsteadman said:

Is that by happenstance?

That's a great question. You could assume the tuition is intended to prevent low-income African Americans from attending, but to do that would require an analysis of their books, revenue, profit margins, etc. It's easy to make a claim at the surface level, but you need to support that claim by finding out the real reason behind the discrepancy rather than jumping to a conclusion based on said discrepancy only.

 

Just now, Mockingbird said:

So all white people in Indianola, MS are wealthy and all black people in Indianola are needy?

Considering that, statistically speaking, African Americans are disproportionately impoverished compared to Whites then yes? It's not a good thing, but it is a reality.

Quote

Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/poverty/

[mrchetsteadman]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

That's a great question. You could assume the tuition is intended to prevent low-income African Americans from attending, but to do that would require an analysis of their books, revenue, profit margins, etc. It's easy to make a claim at the surface level, but you need to support that claim by finding out the real reason behind the discrepancy rather than jumping to a conclusion based on said discrepancy only.

 

Considering that, statistically speaking, African Americans are disproportionately impoverished compared to Whites then yes? It's not a good thing, but it is a reality.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/poverty/

Look at you. Actually having a constructive debate and ######. Makes me wonder if I'm still at Neowin or some alternative dimension. Thanks for that.