I think it's very interesting to think about the day to day decisions people make and the social structures inside which those decisions are made.
Hagerman: In my book, I’m trying to highlight this tension between the broad, overarching social structures that organize all of our lives and the individual choices that people make from within these structures.
I think it's very interesting to think about the day to day decisions people make and the social structures inside which those decisions are made.
Race and class can be tough to untangle, but to me this issue has roots in integration. Across the south, white families either moved to suburbs or put their kids in private school so they...
I also am not sure that doing so is inherently racist either. This seems like much more of a class distinction, rather than a racial one.
Race and class can be tough to untangle, but to me this issue has roots in integration. Across the south, white families either moved to suburbs or put their kids in private school so they wouldn't have to go to school with black kids. Then they continually vote for low taxes at the expense of local schools.
Schools in Richmond, VA, largely abandoned by white families, are so bad that there is a coalition forming around the argument that the city isn't living up to Brown v Board of Education. The coalition includes rural Republican lawmakers, suburban Democratic lawmakers, and Paul Goldman who is former leader of the state Democratic party. Standing opposed is the black, Democratic mayor Stoney and the CEO of Dominion Power who would rather invest in a $300MM colliseum nobody wants.
That was a really interesting article about how just choosing the neighbourhood that you live in can perpetuate privilege in your children. Can't disagree with the author's premise at all, but I...
But really, I do get what the author is saying and generally believe that putting the betterment of society as a whole above our own success is commendable and is something that we should all strive for. But, when we start talking about our children and putting what's best for other peoples kids above our own, that is a tough sell.
I dont think it is necessarily fair to fault people from putting their children in the best schools or choosing the best neighborhoods to raise them.
That was a really interesting article about how just choosing the neighbourhood that you live in can perpetuate privilege in your children. Can't disagree with the author's premise at all, but I also agree with you that most parents won't be willing to sacrifice what is best for their children for the betterment of the collective.
My parents are immigrants who didn't have a lot of money when they first came to Canada. I remember we lived in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city and went to an elementary school that was, while ethnically diverse, pretty poor when it came to quality of education. I excelled in class compared to my classmates, but our provincial standardized testing ranked me below average. I think that really worried my parents and they worked hard to earn enough money so that we could move to a better neighbourhood and, thus a better junior high school.
It was such a shock going into a brand new school that had better teachers and more resources and it was obvious to me even at my age that I was way behind my other classmates that had gone to a better elementary school and it took a lot of work to catch up to them.
Since then, I have been able to go to university, get a job that pays a living wage and live in a pretty good neighbourhood. I'm not really sure if I would be in the same spot had my parents kept me on the "poor" school track. Now that I have a child of my own, I don't think I could purposefully place them in a school that wouldn't be able to provide him with a good education.
All this to say that as a person of colour, I don't think I would be willing to compromise my child's future, so I don't think it would be entirely fair to expect white parents to do differently.
I think it just points to the inconvenient fact that while we sought to end racism (in many places begrudgingly) we went on trying to sell the idea that classism is still ok. They are just two...
I think it just points to the inconvenient fact that while we sought to end racism (in many places begrudgingly) we went on trying to sell the idea that classism is still ok. They are just two sides of the same coin - you can't separate them because racism was just a tool used to perpetuate a greater class hierarchy. But the rugged individualism that North America is known for is paramount to the struggles of others - you can't see yourself as a winner without the contrast of losers below you.
Because of this you get a lot of people defending ideas that basically amount to Social Darwinism. You also get a bunch of people who are content to work on their own identity politics and thinking they are part of the solution as long as their own place in the class structure isn't threatened.
I'm really struggling to reply to this because I can't separate your arguments here from what I see as your normal "militant woke" Tildes posting. This is where you draw the line? Every other...
I'm really struggling to reply to this because I can't separate your arguments here from what I see as your normal "militant woke" Tildes posting. This is where you draw the line? Every other topic people need to educate themselves and modify their speech & behaviour but not here? When the effects are so obvious and life changing? But suddenly it's O.K? </rant> anyway.
But, when we start talking about our children and putting what's best for other peoples kids above our own, that is a tough sell.
I agree, losing privilege is always a "tough sell" and parents are more motivated than most to protect and advance their kids well being. But to me this is just the expression of their biological drives. If there turn out to be biological drives that motivate overt racists would that make their racism O.K?
On a similar vein do people who choose not to have kids gain the same exception allowing discrimination to promote their own well being at the expense of others?
Would a better solution be to look at the education system itself and work to equalize opportunities and raise them for kids across the board rather than faulting parents from choosing better schools for their kids?
I do think ideally our first stop should always be to remove systematic bias that disadvantages people. America is definitely not doing well with the way schools are locally funded.
But obviously this approach isn't sufficient, it's merely the necessary first step. And you're not even going to get to that first step without talking about it. Racially & economically privileged parents aren't going to just give up because the system is free from overt bias. In the UK lots of parents buy houses to get into the catchment area from good schools. So without challenging the motivation no matter what the system the racial & class bias will be perpetuated.
I believe this is more than just a tough sell. To a lesser extend, but in Canada, parents do also try to buy houses in the "right" neighbourhoods in order to get their children into choice...
I agree, losing privilege is always a "tough sell" and parents are more motivated than most to protect and advance their kids well being.
I believe this is more than just a tough sell. To a lesser extend, but in Canada, parents do also try to buy houses in the "right" neighbourhoods in order to get their children into choice schools. The issue isn't the individual families giving up their privilege. If one family chose not to buy a specific house to get into a specific school, it doesn't mean a less privileged family suddenly could.
I feel it's important to recognize the issue race/class has, so that we can target perhaps specific public schools that have issues.
I'm not a parent, but I can honestly say there's a difference between me sacrificing something and me asking someone else (in this case a hypothetically child) to.
Make the not giant leap of equating economic status with privilege and that's exactly what it means. If I bid up the price of houses in good school districts then they're more expensive and thus...
If one family chose not to buy a specific house to get into a specific school, it doesn't mean a less privileged family suddenly could.
Make the not giant leap of equating economic status with privilege and that's exactly what it means. If I bid up the price of houses in good school districts then they're more expensive and thus out of reach of poorer folk. I'm not likely to move the market a long way alone but with my peers in aggregate our decisions to buy sets the price.
If there are a limited amount of places in 'good' schools then any use of economic or social privilege to secure those places for your offspring obviously comes at the expense of the children of less privileged parents.
I find it unfathomable that Tildes argues often on pronouns, white fragility & similar being meaningful but the consensus here is to defend the right to exert privileged in keeping disadvantaged children out of good schools.
For the record, I can't believe we argue any those too, but I am not at all defending "the right to exert privileged in keeping disadvantaged children out of good schools." Economic status is...
I find it unfathomable that Tildes argues often on pronouns, white fragility & similar being meaningful but the consensus here is to defend the right to exert privileged in keeping disadvantaged children out of good schools.
For the record, I can't believe we argue any those too, but I am not at all defending "the right to exert privileged in keeping disadvantaged children out of good schools."
Economic status is privilege. I completely agree. But I also think this is sort of a tangent.
I strongly believe every student in every school should have the same resources available to them. I don't believe this is going to be accomplished through the privileged buying in the ghetto. I believe we need to support universal education.
My issue with articles like this one are that there's so much focus on the individual and not society as a whole. Ultimately the individual is limited in what they can do.
Speaking from my own experiences, I'm a visible minority and I went to a pretty ghetto school. My parents moved when I was in high school so that I could go to a better school. It was day and night. I could never ask or expect anyone to sacrifice their education. That education gives me the economic status I have today. And that economic status, that privilege provides me so much protection from discrimination.
But in making statements like: You absolutely are, the education budget is limited, even where it's evenly distributed two schools with the same budget one of which has parents valuing education...
...but I am not at all defending "the right to exert privileged in keeping disadvantaged children out of good schools."
But in making statements like:
I could never ask or expect anyone to sacrifice their education.
You absolutely are, the education budget is limited, even where it's evenly distributed two schools with the same budget one of which has parents valuing education more will obviously have very different outcomes.
This is fundamentally about dividing up a limited resource. In the case of economic outcomes for Whites & Men just the evidence of an unfair result is enough to motivate mainstream conversation about the problem and the need for change. Here we not only can see the unfair end result, the unfair mechanisms are directly visible too!
For the record I went to a relatively awful state school motivated by my parents ideology, I had a relatively terrible time but so did lots of people.
I don't know what to say. I'm not. We don't need to ask anyone to sacrifice their children's education. In fact, the opposite, we should be encouraging people to be involved and supporting all...
You absolutely are,...
I don't know what to say. I'm not. We don't need to ask anyone to sacrifice their children's education. In fact, the opposite, we should be encouraging people to be involved and supporting all schools and a public education system.
the education budget is limited, even where it's evenly distributed two schools with the same budget one of which has parents valuing education more will obviously have very different outcomes.
I agree...but I'm not sure what point you're making. Good parents matter...that's not specific race/gender/whatever.
This is fundamentally about dividing up a limited resource. In the case of economic outcomes for Whites & Men just the evidence of an unfair result is enough to motivate mainstream conversation about the problem and the need for change. Here we not only can see the unfair end result, the unfair mechanisms are directly visible too!
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. I think we all agree that not everyone is getting equal and fair access.
I think it's very interesting to think about the day to day decisions people make and the social structures inside which those decisions are made.
Race and class can be tough to untangle, but to me this issue has roots in integration. Across the south, white families either moved to suburbs or put their kids in private school so they wouldn't have to go to school with black kids. Then they continually vote for low taxes at the expense of local schools.
Schools in Richmond, VA, largely abandoned by white families, are so bad that there is a coalition forming around the argument that the city isn't living up to Brown v Board of Education. The coalition includes rural Republican lawmakers, suburban Democratic lawmakers, and Paul Goldman who is former leader of the state Democratic party. Standing opposed is the black, Democratic mayor Stoney and the CEO of Dominion Power who would rather invest in a $300MM colliseum nobody wants.
That was a really interesting article about how just choosing the neighbourhood that you live in can perpetuate privilege in your children. Can't disagree with the author's premise at all, but I also agree with you that most parents won't be willing to sacrifice what is best for their children for the betterment of the collective.
My parents are immigrants who didn't have a lot of money when they first came to Canada. I remember we lived in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city and went to an elementary school that was, while ethnically diverse, pretty poor when it came to quality of education. I excelled in class compared to my classmates, but our provincial standardized testing ranked me below average. I think that really worried my parents and they worked hard to earn enough money so that we could move to a better neighbourhood and, thus a better junior high school.
It was such a shock going into a brand new school that had better teachers and more resources and it was obvious to me even at my age that I was way behind my other classmates that had gone to a better elementary school and it took a lot of work to catch up to them.
Since then, I have been able to go to university, get a job that pays a living wage and live in a pretty good neighbourhood. I'm not really sure if I would be in the same spot had my parents kept me on the "poor" school track. Now that I have a child of my own, I don't think I could purposefully place them in a school that wouldn't be able to provide him with a good education.
All this to say that as a person of colour, I don't think I would be willing to compromise my child's future, so I don't think it would be entirely fair to expect white parents to do differently.
Edit: Added quotes
I think it just points to the inconvenient fact that while we sought to end racism (in many places begrudgingly) we went on trying to sell the idea that classism is still ok. They are just two sides of the same coin - you can't separate them because racism was just a tool used to perpetuate a greater class hierarchy. But the rugged individualism that North America is known for is paramount to the struggles of others - you can't see yourself as a winner without the contrast of losers below you.
Because of this you get a lot of people defending ideas that basically amount to Social Darwinism. You also get a bunch of people who are content to work on their own identity politics and thinking they are part of the solution as long as their own place in the class structure isn't threatened.
I'm really struggling to reply to this because I can't separate your arguments here from what I see as your normal "militant woke" Tildes posting. This is where you draw the line? Every other topic people need to educate themselves and modify their speech & behaviour but not here? When the effects are so obvious and life changing? But suddenly it's O.K? </rant> anyway.
I agree, losing privilege is always a "tough sell" and parents are more motivated than most to protect and advance their kids well being. But to me this is just the expression of their biological drives. If there turn out to be biological drives that motivate overt racists would that make their racism O.K?
On a similar vein do people who choose not to have kids gain the same exception allowing discrimination to promote their own well being at the expense of others?
I do think ideally our first stop should always be to remove systematic bias that disadvantages people. America is definitely not doing well with the way schools are locally funded.
But obviously this approach isn't sufficient, it's merely the necessary first step. And you're not even going to get to that first step without talking about it. Racially & economically privileged parents aren't going to just give up because the system is free from overt bias. In the UK lots of parents buy houses to get into the catchment area from good schools. So without challenging the motivation no matter what the system the racial & class bias will be perpetuated.
I believe this is more than just a tough sell. To a lesser extend, but in Canada, parents do also try to buy houses in the "right" neighbourhoods in order to get their children into choice schools. The issue isn't the individual families giving up their privilege. If one family chose not to buy a specific house to get into a specific school, it doesn't mean a less privileged family suddenly could.
I feel it's important to recognize the issue race/class has, so that we can target perhaps specific public schools that have issues.
I'm not a parent, but I can honestly say there's a difference between me sacrificing something and me asking someone else (in this case a hypothetically child) to.
Make the not giant leap of equating economic status with privilege and that's exactly what it means. If I bid up the price of houses in good school districts then they're more expensive and thus out of reach of poorer folk. I'm not likely to move the market a long way alone but with my peers in aggregate our decisions to buy sets the price.
If there are a limited amount of places in 'good' schools then any use of economic or social privilege to secure those places for your offspring obviously comes at the expense of the children of less privileged parents.
I find it unfathomable that Tildes argues often on pronouns, white fragility & similar being meaningful but the consensus here is to defend the right to exert privileged in keeping disadvantaged children out of good schools.
For the record, I can't believe we argue any those too, but I am not at all defending "the right to exert privileged in keeping disadvantaged children out of good schools."
Economic status is privilege. I completely agree. But I also think this is sort of a tangent.
I strongly believe every student in every school should have the same resources available to them. I don't believe this is going to be accomplished through the privileged buying in the ghetto. I believe we need to support universal education.
My issue with articles like this one are that there's so much focus on the individual and not society as a whole. Ultimately the individual is limited in what they can do.
Speaking from my own experiences, I'm a visible minority and I went to a pretty ghetto school. My parents moved when I was in high school so that I could go to a better school. It was day and night. I could never ask or expect anyone to sacrifice their education. That education gives me the economic status I have today. And that economic status, that privilege provides me so much protection from discrimination.
But in making statements like:
You absolutely are, the education budget is limited, even where it's evenly distributed two schools with the same budget one of which has parents valuing education more will obviously have very different outcomes.
This is fundamentally about dividing up a limited resource. In the case of economic outcomes for Whites & Men just the evidence of an unfair result is enough to motivate mainstream conversation about the problem and the need for change. Here we not only can see the unfair end result, the unfair mechanisms are directly visible too!
For the record I went to a relatively awful state school motivated by my parents ideology, I had a relatively terrible time but so did lots of people.
I don't know what to say. I'm not. We don't need to ask anyone to sacrifice their children's education. In fact, the opposite, we should be encouraging people to be involved and supporting all schools and a public education system.
I agree...but I'm not sure what point you're making. Good parents matter...that's not specific race/gender/whatever.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. I think we all agree that not everyone is getting equal and fair access.
If you have a criticism of the content of the article, post it. Don't make vague, reflexive dismissals, they don't contribute anything to discussion.