4 ms·

It is generally true that systems like school funding are racist in outcome but not design - but there are a surprising number of instances where the design act

It is generally true that systems like school funding are racist in outcome but not design - but there are a surprising number of instances where the design actually is created with that intent. Most commonly seen these days with a rich white suburb deciding to incorporate their own school district so they can stop having nearby black kids attend - usually they can skate by with some platitudes about local control but when actually on a witness stand it doesn't hold up. https://www.vox.com/2019/9/6/20853091/school-secession-racial-segregation-louisiana-alabama https://www.vox.com/2019/9/6/20853091/school-secession-racia...

kbenson 7y ago
> usually they can skate by with some platitudes about local control but when actually on a witness stand it doesn't hold up. Maybe I'm missing the portion you're looking at, but all I'm seeing this says is that the plaintiffs argued it was about race, and the defendants didn't have good evidence as to their reasoning why they did it. To my eyes, and based on a lot of the information presented in the article, it is just as likely (if not more so) that it was about class. I sincerely doubt that district wanted to invite the poor white students from the full district any more than the poor black ones. What that means is that this attempted change, which would have been racist in outcome if possibly not intent, was defeated by viewing it as racist as intent. Was that a good thing? Maybe? I guess it depends on what else they did. How do you rectify the actual problem, when you assume it's people not liking others with different skin colors? You vilify those people and try to punish them or change them or wait for them to die or by marginalized, none of which seem to work very well. But if they weren't actually racist, and it was more a problem of class and poverty, there are other solutions, because in addition to trying to change the people you can also try to help those in poverty. Distilled to a simple form, it's like seeing a white shop owner turn away a black homeless person. You can assume racism, and ostracize the shop owner. Or you can assume classism, and do the same but also try to help the homeless person. I think in many cases racism is used as an easy way to "resolve" a problem without addressing it at all. It exists, but it's also intimately ties with class and poverty, and one of those is much more useful to address at this point than the other, but it also much less likely to be addressed.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  > there are other solutions, because in addition to trying to change the people you can also try to help those in poverty. Yes. That solution, to the problem of rich white people trying to stop sharing their school funding with poor black people, is to not allow them to leave. That's what happened. Nobody ostracized anyone and your simple form is an invalid analogy. If anything, it would be more accurate to say that they saw a white shop owner consistently turning away black people and took them to court to say that black people should not be turned away.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    > That solution, to the problem of rich white people trying to stop sharing their school funding with poor black people, is to not allow them to leave. That's what happened. But what about the solution to the problem of the rich people not wanting to share with the poor people? What if that's a major part of the problem? Was that addressed at all, or just swept under the rug as "racist people will be racist, just don't let them"? Preferably, something that also addressed the issue of poverty, or at least kept it acknowledged as part of the problem. > If anything, it would be more accurate to say that they saw a white shop owner consistently turning away black people and took them to court to say that black people should not be turned away. Exactly. But is that the better solution? What about the poor white person that comes in next? Do they get turned away, because they're not black? What about the fact that they're both still homeless? When you identify the wrong problem, you're at risk of implementing a worse solution. Racism is bad, and it's sometimes the case it perfectly explains what happened, but not always, and not often entirely, but it's convenient because it means nobody else has to change or do anything. We all get to point at the bad people that make convenient scapegoats and comment about how we would never do anything like that, while nothing really changes, because the problem was only partially racism to begin with, and there's not a lot to change structurally to stop it that hasn't already happened when it is racism.

kbenson 7y ago

> usually they can skate by with some platitudes about local control but when actually on a witness stand it doesn't hold up. Maybe I'm missing the portion you're looking at, but all I'm seeing this says is that the plaintiffs argued it was about race, and the defendants didn't have good evidence as to their reasoning why they did it. To my eyes, and based on a lot of the information presented in the article, it is just as likely (if not more so) that it was about class. I sincerely doubt that district wanted to invite the poor white students from the full district any more than the poor black ones. What that means is that this attempted change, which would have been racist in outcome if possibly not intent, was defeated by viewing it as racist as intent. Was that a good thing? Maybe? I guess it depends on what else they did. How do you rectify the actual problem, when you assume it's people not liking others with different skin colors? You vilify those people and try to punish them or change them or wait for them to die or by marginalized, none of which seem to work very well. But if they weren't actually racist, and it was more a problem of class and poverty, there are other solutions, because in addition to trying to change the people you can also try to help those in poverty. Distilled to a simple form, it's like seeing a white shop owner turn away a black homeless person. You can assume racism, and ostracize the shop owner. Or you can assume classism, and do the same but also try to help the homeless person. I think in many cases racism is used as an easy way to "resolve" a problem without addressing it at all. It exists, but it's also intimately ties with class and poverty, and one of those is much more useful to address at this point than the other, but it also much less likely to be addressed.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
> there are other solutions, because in addition to trying to change the people you can also try to help those in poverty. Yes. That solution, to the problem of rich white people trying to stop sharing their school funding with poor black people, is to not allow them to leave. That's what happened. Nobody ostracized anyone and your simple form is an invalid analogy. If anything, it would be more accurate to say that they saw a white shop owner consistently turning away black people and took them to court to say that black people should not be turned away.
- kbenson 7y ago
  > That solution, to the problem of rich white people trying to stop sharing their school funding with poor black people, is to not allow them to leave. That's what happened. But what about the solution to the problem of the rich people not wanting to share with the poor people? What if that's a major part of the problem? Was that addressed at all, or just swept under the rug as "racist people will be racist, just don't let them"? Preferably, something that also addressed the issue of poverty, or at least kept it acknowledged as part of the problem. > If anything, it would be more accurate to say that they saw a white shop owner consistently turning away black people and took them to court to say that black people should not be turned away. Exactly. But is that the better solution? What about the poor white person that comes in next? Do they get turned away, because they're not black? What about the fact that they're both still homeless? When you identify the wrong problem, you're at risk of implementing a worse solution. Racism is bad, and it's sometimes the case it perfectly explains what happened, but not always, and not often entirely, but it's convenient because it means nobody else has to change or do anything. We all get to point at the bad people that make convenient scapegoats and comment about how we would never do anything like that, while nothing really changes, because the problem was only partially racism to begin with, and there's not a lot to change structurally to stop it that hasn't already happened when it is racism.