I'm curious about one thing- you vaguely mentioned a scenario in one of your previous posts about the public school system (I'm guessing in your area). Would you mind sharing or pointing me towards an article? It seems to be a very particular thing you have in mind and I'd like to know the frame of reference. It might help me/others understand your POV.
ETA: I wish I could afford pearls to clutch :(
(amen to affording pearls...)
OK, this is long, because it's hard to explain.
Elite CPS high schools need to reconsider race as factor - Chicago Sun-Times
This article is an opinion piece. If you Google Chicago public schools, and race, and selective enrollment you will get more. I picked this because it's short, and flat out states that up until 2010 race was a factor in determining entrance to these schools, as opposed to just scores. And that based on a supreme Court ruling, that system was done away with.
Facts to keep in mind:
-The new system has increased the number of white students in these schools. Obviously this benefits my family, so my bias is clear.
-The new system is awful, unfair, and just as race based and corrupt as the old one. I don't know how to fix it - but I do know it's still unfair.
-These schools are selective enrollment, which means you have to test into them. They are still, however, PUBLIC SCHOOLS. There is supposed to be fair and equal access to them. Up until 2010, if you were black you could score up to 100 points lower on the tests and get in, over a white child that scored higher. Under the new system, the same is true, except instead of black/white, they've divided it by socioeconomic factors and neighborhood. This is more in alignment with how all of the US segregates schools, but is no less race based. This system is obviously flawed, but I'm not sure how to make it fair. The desirable schools are not in bad neighborhoods, and those kids are coming from cr@ppy schools - so it is more difficult for them to score well on these tests (think SATs on a smaller scale). I don't know that a score only system would give them fair access, so I see why we have a system - I just don't like the system we have.
The only reason I brought it up is because it is a very clear example of non-white people in a position of power deciding to intentionally withhold a right from white people. I don't see how this is not racist (*the majority of people in power in Chicago - the city leaders and the people who make decisions, policies, and laws - are non-white. Less than 50% of the population of the city is white, making whites not the majority here. Not offensive, regardless of how people take it - this is an actual statistic. There are more minorities in Chicago than white people. Again, oxymoron. However, the point is, the power for THIS decision was not solely in the hands of rich white people)
I'm not asking if the system is right or fair, or anything else. All I asked is how is this NOT RACISM. People in power choosing to deny someone something based on their race, and no other factors.
I don't even know that I think it's not OK - I want all kids in Chicago to have access to good schools, and I spend a lot of time and effort fighting for free, fair, and equal education for every kid in this city. I see that the setup of schools is garbage, meant to intentionally deny access to poor minority children (geographically). What I don't see is how denying white children access is any less racist. So, only in response to "black people can't be racist," I think this is ONE example of they can.
