positive discrimination

Demonique

The Corinthian wrote:

Well if you discriminate on the basis of race then it is racism, by definition, regardless of whether the discrimination is positive or negative.

Would I send my child to such a school? TBH, 'financially disadvantaged' would probably bother me more than 'ethnic minorities' as they are more likely to bring social baggage with them that would, by association, influence my child.

As for ethnic minorities, I suppose it would depend upon the minority and the culture they come from, so were they Asian children they would more likely come from a background that would encourage academic achievement, so I'd actually favour this, while gypsy children would come from a background that I frankly would consider negative and thus would not want it rubbing off my child (a moot point because they almost never send their children to school).

Similarly, were I living in the US I would have issues with my child being lumped in with black children, while if I was in the UK I'd not have the same reservations. So it would be more the culture than the race that would be an issue for me.

Well, I would have issues with my child being lumped in with children who have racists like you as parents

Ayla

The Corinthian wrote:

Similarly, were I living in the US I would have issues with my child being lumped in with black children, while if I was in the UK I'd not have the same reservations. So it would be more the culture than the race that would be an issue for me.

I agree with Demonique - Corinthian, how can you make such an ignorant statement? Have you ever been to the States? Have you gone through the educational systems in the States and the UK? Have you experienced first-hand anything to make you feel justified in saying this???....

You may *think* you know how different cultures rate in schools, and you may therefore feel justified in making such grossly overgeneralized comments, but I assure you you're wrong. I grew up in the States, and I see the exact same cultural divisions happening here in Ireland and in the UK. So while you may think Americans are more guilty of cultural variation in their educational standards, you are wrong.

And by the way, your own thoughts are part of the self-perpetuating problem. Take your blinders off and re-read your own statements from someone else's viewpoint. Maybe you'll see how your comments make the blood boil...probably not though.

The Corinthian

Demonique wrote:

Well, I would have issues with my child being lumped in with children who have racists like you as parents

How was what I said racist? I based my views on cultural rather than racial trends. Indeed, I actually think that race is irrelevant and at worst coincidental.

Or did you mean racist in the 'Politically Correct buffoon who does not know what they're talking about' sense of the word?

Ayla wrote:

And by the way, your own thoughts are part of the self-perpetuating problem. Take your blinders off and re-read your own statements from someone else's viewpoint. Maybe you'll see how your comments make the blood boil...probably not though.

If you're blood is boiling you're using emotion and not reason to assess such issues. One does not have to live in the US or UK to know that there are statistical differences between populations that are freely and publicly available. One of these is that, for example, blacks in the US have a far higher rate of social problems than those in the UK - this is an environmental rather than racial statistic as they are both the same race. Hence my comment.

Now lumping children from stable backgrounds with those from unstable backgrounds may well improve the academic performance of the latter at the expense of the former and you may consider this a good thing, but if that is the case you are more than welcome to sacrifice your child's future to your principles. I would not.

ceidefields

Actually corinthian "lumping" children with stable backgrounds with those who are less fortunate, doesn't lower the scores of the better off children. It simply has the effect of improving the scores of poorer kids.

Not to mention the fact that it exposes kids to different kinds of people - something they'll have to deal with in the real world.

I live in a school district in the US that is split 50/50 between black kids and white kids. And on a socio economic point of view, the black kids tend to come from poorer households, although this is not 100% the case. The white kids get the same classroom instruction and go on to attend top class colleges. The black kids tend to fail and in general, not thrive.

They're all mixed in together, so clearly the poorer kids are not dragging down the better off kids in this situation.

I can provide statistical proof going back ten years to back my point up. I challenge you to provide statistical proof of the opposite it.

Time Magazine

ceidefields wrote:

Actually corinthian "lumping" children with stable backgrounds with those who are less fortunate, doesn't lower the scores of the better off children. It simply has the effect of improving the scores of poorer kids.

I'd like to see evidence of this please.

The Corinthian

ceidefields wrote:

I live in a school district in the US that is split 50/50 between black kids and white kids. And on a socio economic point of view, the black kids tend to come from poorer households, although this is not 100% the case. The white kids get the same classroom instruction and go on to attend top class colleges. The black kids tend to fail and in general, not thrive.

I can provide statistical proof going back ten years to back my point up.

Go on...

Ayla

The Corinthian wrote:

One does not have to live in the US or UK to know that there are statistical differences between populations that are freely and publicly available. One of these is that, for example, blacks in the US have a far higher rate of social problems than those in the UK

Until you cite such "freely and publicly available" references, I will continue to believe you to be grossly incorrect in your statements. If you *want* to believe that black Americans have higher economic/social problems then black Brits, you will find examples that justify your own beliefs. However, if you try to look at it objectively, you will find that such sweeping generalizations are only part of the puzzle.

Prove me wrong...

The Corinthian

Ayla wrote:

Until you cite such "freely and publicly available" references, I will continue to believe you to be grossly incorrect in your statements. If you *want* to believe that black Americans have higher economic/social problems then black Brits, you will find examples that justify your own beliefs. However, if you try to look at it objectively, you will find that such sweeping generalizations are only part of the puzzle.

What BS is this? First you ask me to find references, then you claim that they will only be ones that would justify my position, so they don't count (even before I cite them).

Is this a case of "give me references, but I reserve the right to ignore them if I don't like what they point to"?

Ayla

The Corinthian wrote:

What BS is this? First you ask me to find references, then you claim that they will only be ones that would justify my position, so they don't count (even before I cite them).

Is this a case of "give me references, but I reserve the right to ignore them if I don't like what they point to"?

Fair enough. But like I said, prove me wrong. If you can cite references (since you claim they're so widely available) that show your argument to be accurate, I'll be happy to hear them. I have an open mind and would like to hear your case (but only if you have evidence to support your arguments)

Time Magazine

Ayla wrote:

Fair enough. But like I said, prove me wrong. If you can cite references (since you claim they're so widely available) that show your argument to be accurate, I'll be happy to hear them. I have an open mind and would like to hear your case (but only if you have evidence to support your arguments)

I don't agree with The Corinthian on a lot of things and it would appear that positive discrimination is another for the list, but these statistics are very easily found. The best proxy I can come up with off the top of my head is incarceration rates.

In 2002 in America - this figure is insane - over 10% of black American males aged 25-29 were in prison. This is about nine times the rate for whites.

Table 2.6 in this .xls dataset shows whites account for about five times the number of incarcerations as "Black or Black British".

Are these statistics conclusive? Of course not, I gathered them in about ten minutes via four Google searches after midnight. One is a percentage figure and the other is an absolute number. But they nonetheless an indication of what you might expect to come.

Time Magazine

Ayla? Ceidefields?

Any opinions or sources in responses?

Ayla

Ibid -

Sorry, I'm not stalling or skirting the discussion, just haven't had a chance to respond till now.

I think your stats about prison rates are interesting, and I agree that it may be a way of trying to shed some objective light on Corinthian's argument.

I'm still waiting for Corinthian to come back with some evidence to support his own statements.

The Corinthian

Ibid has essentially done so for me, so I didn't bother adding to it. From the spreadsheet it probably would not be terribly difficult what percentage of the UK black population within the same demographic was incarcerated. After that all you'd need to do is find any of a number of studies that describe the effect of prison on the family of the person incarcerated.

None of this is really that complex to work out and, TBH, I'm surprised you didn't know about the US prison statistics as they make the Worldwide news often enough.

Currently both you and Ceidefields have claimed the opposite and have presented no evidence to support this. In the case of Ceidefields, I doubt if he or she will return to this thread as a result.

Ayla

The Corinthian wrote:

Ibid has essentially done so for me, so I didn't bother adding to it.

Well if you're content letting someone else do the support of your argument for you, then so be it...

You're right, in a way...families and communities who face high prison rates will have so-called "social baggage". I don't disagree with you there.

What I disagree with is the assumption that all US blacks have such association. Yes, the stats showed that 10% of black americans go to prison, but that leaves a whoping 90% who don't. Taking into account the degrees of separation, I'd still estimate that leaves approx 50% of blacks who don't have any direct contact or connections with inmates. But you're willing to say you don't want your child "lumped" in class with black americans.

That is where your comments rubbed me the wrong way. If you had said "I don't want my child lumped in with drug dealers" I'd of course agree. But you're assuming that since the american kid's black s/he'll be a negative influence on your child.

Kernel32

The Corinthian wrote:

Similarly, were I living in the US I would have issues with my child being lumped in with black children, while if I was in the UK I'd not have the same reservations. So it would be more the culture than the race that would be an issue for me.

Out of interest if you did live in the US what lengths would you go to so you child didn't go to school with black children? You generally can't choose which public school your child will attend, it's whatever school is serving your district. So you would have two choices. You could research the whitest areas in the country to live in, thus reducing your child's exposure to blacks. Or you could opt for private school and try and find one that has a policy of not allowing black children. Maybe such a school exists but I couldn't be sure.

The Corinthian

Ayla wrote:

Well if you're content letting someone else do the support of your argument for you, then so be it...

He/she simply got there first.

What I disagree with is the assumption that all US blacks have such association.

I never made any such assumption. However if you are faced with placing your child in a situation where they could be in the company of children who have a, for argument's sake, 40% chance of coming from an anti-social background, then you're probably not going feel comfortable with those odds.

Yes, the stats showed that 10% of black americans go to prison, but that leaves a whoping 90% who don't.

They're not going to school with the one's who are in prison. They go to school with the children, nephews or siblings of those who are, were or should be in prison there were they caught. That a relative is incarcerated can have a decremental social impact on entire families and is only one of the symptoms of a far greater social ill.

There are plenty of white, Irish scumbags in Dublin who are not in prison or never were or will be, even if they are demographically more likely to do so. But they're still scumbags and this will rub off on their children and in turn those they associate with. When viewing demographics we can only look at the warning signs and make a value judgment based upon them.

Taking into account the degrees of separation, I'd still estimate that leaves approx 50% of blacks who don't have any direct contact or connections with inmates. But you're willing to say you don't want your child "lumped" in class with black americans.

I have no idea how you worked out that figure. I suggest you seek evidence to support your argument rather than extrapolate dubious assumptions based upon the limited indicators presently supplied.

You're also missing the point that I reiterated above. Would you put your kid in a school where the other children would have a 50% chance of coming from a family with social problems?

Kernel32 wrote:

Or you could opt for private school and try and find one that has a policy of not allowing black children. Maybe such a school exists but I couldn't be sure.

I have no problem with any child of mine going to school with black children of any nationality and this seems to be something that people don't seem to be able to grasp. Maybe this is because you're all too obsessed with the whole racism angle.

I do have a problem with any child of mine going to school with children from anti-social backgrounds, regardless of their race, creed or ethnic background. As such, if it was a private school and full of African-Americans, I wouldn't mind at all because it would be unlikely (gangsta rappers aside) that they would come from such a background.

African-Americans were only one of a number of groups I gave as an example (when comparing them with British blacks) and the debate has completely lost the point in it's obsession with them.

Ayla

The Corinthian wrote:

I have no problem with any child of mine going to school with black children of any nationality ... I do have a problem with any child of mine going to school with children from anti-social backgrounds, regardless of their race, creed or ethnic background.

Sorry, but this is absolutely not what you said originally. You said, and I quote:

were I living in the US I would have issues with my child being lumped in with black children, while if I was in the UK I'd not have the same reservations. So it would be more the culture than the race that would be an issue for me

If you had said originally, as you did in your last post:

I do have a problem with any child of mine going to school with children from anti-social backgrounds, regardless of their race, creed or ethnic background
Then I don't think anyone would have disagreed. No one wants their kids in classes with "problem" children. But to make blanket statements like your original post is exactly the reason some of us have jumped on you.

The Corinthian

Ayla wrote:

Sorry, but this is absolutely not what you said originally.

It is exactly what I said. That I pointed out that I'd have no problem with UK blacks underlines this. I don't think it was obtuse in delivery, so I don't understand how you failed to comprehend it.

Ayla

Whatever, if you can't see how your statements

I have no problem with any child of mine going to school with black children of any nationality

and

were I living in the US I would have issues with my child being lumped in with black children

are a complete contradiction of each other, then I give up. This conversation has completely strayed away from the OP anyway.

The Corinthian

Ayla wrote:

Whatever, if you can't see how your statements

I have no problem with any child of mine going to school with black children of any nationality

and

were I living in the US I would have issues with my child being lumped in with black children

are a complete contradiction of each other, then I give up.

They're only a contradiction if you don't understand them. My point is not that they are either black or American, only that the African-American demographic simply happens to be an undesirable one due to the social problems prevalent in that demographic - race and nationality are simply coincidental.

Given this I also recognize that it not a simple demographic as I began with saying that I'd have reservations, not be dead set against as I recognize that there would be demographic differences between children of any kind in a public or private school.

This conversation has completely strayed away from the OP anyway.

Only because people heard something they detected as politically incorrect and saw red without bothering to consider it rationally. One Muppet here even managed to call me racist because they saw the word black and didn't bother reading the actual content of my post. This is why we are now OT.

The point of this thread is would you put your children in with children from a demographic that would tend to have far greater social problems. To do so might be the politically correct and socially responsible thing to do, but that's not how we work when we look to the best interests of our children.

As I responded to you before (which you've ignored), would you put your kid in a school where the other children would have a 50% chance of coming from a family with social problems? The vast majority of parents would not.