What racial integration & diversity did to dallas schools (Plano: renting, credit)

[Sandstorm214]

Originally Posted by dubeaux

Your first sentence contradicts the second. A major contention of my initial post is that forced integration drove out the white students.

So the solution should have been to keep schools segregated because that's what the white people wanted? Isn't that what this boils down to?

Originally Posted by dubeaux

If not for that, DISD would have a much larger number of white students today, probably over 50%. Whites are declining as a majority because of specific anti-white government policies: mass, non-white immigration and the forced integration in schools which caused whites to flee into neighborhoods where the property values literally exploded because of their influx, making it economically much more difficult for a white family to have children. There are other reasons for this - the increasing materialism & the "it's all about me" culture - but immigration and integration are important causes.

Again, I don't think most non-racist and non-xenophobic whites have a problem sending their children to schools with non-white students today. Most parents I know just want their children in a school that provides a good curriculum and is safe. The RISD school in my neighborhood does just that in spite of the fact that it is less than 50% white. Other than that, this is simply a biased rant on your part about what you consider to be "anti-white."

Saying that the influx of non-whites caused property values to explode which thereby caused whites to have fewer children is absolutely ridiculous and defies almost any study that I've seen on the decline of birthrates amongst Anglos in this country.

Originally Posted by dubeaux

Disagree. The white immigrants in New York City at the beginning and early to middle 20th century - Italians, Jews, Slavs, Irish, Germans - were dirt poor, lived in tough neighborhoods, but the public schools served them well. The kids who graduated from these schools for the poor went on into the middle class, professional class and upper class in one generation. There were also other areas of the USA where people of humble, non-middle class background could find good schooling. However, if you substitute the words, "stable family background" (i.e., mother, father) for middle class, I would agree.

This has nothing to do with race, but rather time. We live in a time when more children are growing up in households where parents just don't take the time to play a role in childrens' lives. Take your same beloved "white" immigrants today, and I'm fairly certain you would not have the same results due to parents who do not play an active role in the lives of their children.

Originally Posted by dubeaux

You haven't provided enough supporting evidence for this statement to be plausible.

And you've provided semi-analogous conclusions based upon a white superiority agenda in response to a serious issue that warrants a realistic discussion. Unfortunately, the obvious bias which forms the basis of your points will prevent that from occurring here. The topics you address are interesting, but using them to shroud what amounts to little more than a white supremacy agenda is not.

[dubeaux]

"I don't think race mixing ever had anything to do with it, race mixing was just the social agenda at the time that resulting in cultural and class mixing on a large scale which caused so many to withdraw from DISD. School systems have a very strong snowball effect, once a school is known as "good" it attracts more "good" students and families, thus making the school even better. Which is why you don't see very many "average" schools, you see either fantastic schools that people are proud to go to, or you see schools everyone is trying to escape."

That's not what the whites who withdrew from DISD said at the time. They didn't say, "We're leaving because of all those poor people coming into our school." They said they were leaving because of blacks, because of violent black behavior, and because of the collapse in standards they believed were caused by blacks. The fact that most of the blacks involved were not middle class was a factor, but not the dominant one. People today - when it's virtually forbidden (at least to whites) to talk about race bluntly - hide behind "class" when they mean race.

There are lots of "average" schools. By definition, most schools are average. Today, an example would be the Garland schools. People aren't lining up to get in to Garland for the schools, but they aren't fleeing in droves, either. Ditto Mesquite.

"The race mixing is just a fire-starter that causes everyone to get up in arms due to racism real and perceived, and makes the school system discussion worthless. I agree with much of what dallas90210 said in his post, even if I don't know about a lot of that guys other posts."

To this I can only cite the Goethe quote at the head of this reply.

[Lakewooder]

Originally Posted by dubeaux

WHAT RACIAL INTEGRATION & DIVERSITY DID TO DALLAS SCHOOLS
By the mid-1970s, white parents had had enough. Besides the troubles mentioned above, their children told them of white girls being groped by black boys in hallways and having their blouses ripped by black girls in the bathrooms, of stairwells controlled by blacks who required whites to pay a toll to use them, of black students who never went to class, but roamed the hallways instead

I was there - and this amusingly ridiculous.

[dubeaux]

"So the solution should have been to keep schools segregated because that's what the white people wanted? Isn't that what this boils down to?"

As I said in the original post, the whites had accepted the original de-segregation mandated by the Brown decision, and the relatively small numbers of middle class blacks who had successfully integrated the north Dallas schools, and who lived fairly close to the schools themselves. They did not accept the large numbers of blacks who were bused in, and who they believed were making the schools physically dangerous for their children, and lowering academic standards.



"Again, I don't think most non-racist and non-xenophobic whites have a problem sending their children to schools with non-white students today. Most parents I know just want their children in a school that provides a good curriculum and is safe. The RISD school in my neighborhood does just that in spite of the fact that it is less than 50% white. Other than that, this is simply a biased rant on your part about what you consider to be 'anti-white.'"

If you compare your neighborhood RISD school's academic indices, of today, which can be found in the TEA AEIS report, with the indices from years in which it was more white and less minority, you will find higher scores and lower negative indices, like disciplinary infractions. Your RISD school has achieved whatever standards it has by tracking, which amounts to a kind of internal segregation, putting most of the whites & asians in higher tracks, and most of the blacks and hispanics in lower ones. This is part of the modus vivendi with integration & Diversity that most schools have developed over the years. As for my post being a "rant," you are entitled to your opinion, but as I provided documented evidence for what I said in it, the burden is on you to show how it's a "rant."

"Saying that the influx of non-whites caused property values to explode which thereby caused whites to have fewer children is absolutely ridiculous and defies almost any study that I've seen on the decline of birthrates amongst Anglos in this country."

Again, there is plenty of raw data on this which supports my statement. As whites flowed in to places like Richardson and Plano, and to a lesser but still important extent, into completely developed neighborhoods like the Park Cities, houses took off in price. Many people competing for a fairly scarce commodity - housing in (what was then) a white school district. Now, just because you haven't seen a study on the decline of birthrates which connects to this doesn't mean the connection doesn't exist. Steve Sailer has written about "affordable family formation," and how this became more difficult - especially for middle class whites fleeing bad/minority dominated schools - as property values inflated drastically. I don't have a link to the specific article, but his work is at www.isteve.com and www.iSteve.blogspot.com , and it's in there.

This has nothing to do with race, but rather time. We live in a time when more children are growing up in households where parents just don't take the time to play a role in childrens' lives. Take your same beloved "white" immigrants today, and I'm fairly certain you would not have the same results due to parents who do not play an active role in the lives of their children.

Given the measured disparities between the races in intelligence, behavior, and achievement, even when class is factored in, the evidence does not support your first sentence. As for the rest of your statement, you may be right. I don't know.


"And you've provided semi-analogous conclusions based upon a white superiority agenda in response to a serious issue that warrants a realistic discussion. Unfortunately, the obvious bias which forms the basis of your points will prevent that from occurring here. The topics you address are interesting, but using them to shroud what amounts to little more than a white supremacy agenda is not."

By "semi-analagous conclusions" do you mean the Titanic comparison? Actually I thought that worked rather well, in a loose sort of way. I am not in favor of a "white supremacy agenda." I am in favor of freedom of choice for whites, and for everyone else, to associate with whom they please, to hire whom they please, to live where they please (among people like themselves, if they desire that), and to send their children to the schools they please, even if that means a "non-diverse" school that doesn't have the seal of approval from our Diversity commissars. That's called freedom. In my view, freedom is incompatible with forced Diversity.

[Macbeth2003]

Too address a couple of points. You leave out one of the main arguments in favour of integration at the time. By keeping schools segregated, it allowed resources to be diverted. The best teachers, better equipment, newest textbooks, and any maintenance, all went to the white schools. One of the many reasons integration was needed was to end this form of favouritism. This is a place where integration was undoubtedly, demonstrably a success.

You also point out that you are not going to address integration in the suburban schools. Is this because it would refute many of your points. Look at RISD. This is a district that was a great school district - and almost all upper class and white - when I attended in the early 90's. It is a now a great school district that is majority minority, and large percentage low income.

You also can point out that DISD resisted for 10 years, and then began large scale integration in the 70's. True enough I suppose, but let us point out what the real attitude was in DISD at the time. The city declared itself desegregated in 1967, which was simply a lie, so the city was willing fight integration tooth and nail. They fought actively in court until into the 1980's this was hardly a willing, well implemented desegregation.

Who knows how things might have turned out had the district simply desegregated as legally bound to do. Instead there was a fairly readily acknowledged viewpoint that if it couldn't be stopped, it was to be fought, and slowed as much as possible. Very few processes that are drawn out for more than 20 years are successful. The flaw is largely in implementation, not in the theory. Again see RISD, a district that embraced changing demographics, and moved on very successfully.

As for this:

Originally Posted by dubeaux

Even if the goal of school integration was simply integration itself, to force blacks and whites together and hope they would date each other and marry each other and eventually blend into one cafe au lait Starbucks supreme shade of people, like James Coleman and a number of other academics apparently hoped...well, despite Barack Obama and some other famous and not so famous "bi-racials," as they are currently known, we ain't there yet, not by a long shot. And there are plenty of whites, and blacks as well, who aren't going to cooperate in that project.

Is your argument that in 35 years it hasn't happened yet? Okay but in the last 30 years the rate of interracial marriage has doubled. Not just Black/White, but all the races intermarry more in each generation. In 1966 Interracial marriage was still illegal in Texas. Today it is 18% of marriages. That certainly is a lot of change in that direction.This is just a fact. I'm not arguing that it is an inherent good It is neither inherently good or bad, you marry who you fall in love with, and race shouldn't matter a bit.

[Macbeth2003]

Originally Posted by dubeaux

By "semi-analagous conclusions" do you mean the Titanic comparison? Actually I thought that worked rather well, in a loose sort of way. I am not in favor of a "white supremacy agenda." I am in favor of freedom of choice for whites, and for everyone else, to associate with whom they please, to hire whom they please, to live where they please (among people like themselves, if they desire that), and to send their children to the schools they please, even if that means a "non-diverse" school that doesn't have the seal of approval from our Diversity commissars. That's called freedom. In my view, freedom is incompatible with forced Diversity.

Ignoring the fact that much of what you just said is usually code for a white supremacy agenda, ie "I'm not a white supremacist, I just want to keep away from those other races," You do have the right to send your children to a non-diverse school. Many private schools have a very low percentage of non-whites. What you don't have is a right to do so at public expense, and in so doing keep non-whites in an inferior school.

[thenewtexan]

Desegregation has only been proven successful when it was not "forced" by the government. This can only be done though upward mobility. In Boston back in the 70s, the idiot judge thought he would make the black schools better by busing white students into them. We all know the rest. People (black and white alike, despite what the history books might say), threw a fit. Now the Boston suburbs have GRADUALLY become more diverse, and those affluent schools are still among the best in the nation. My point: Diversity can be a good thing but only if government stays out of it.

[dubeaux]

"Too address a couple of points. You leave out one of the main arguments in favour of integration at the time. By keeping schools segregated, it allowed resources to be diverted. The best teachers, better equipment, newest textbooks, and any maintenance, all went to the white schools. One of the many reasons integration was needed was to end this form of favouritism. This is a place where integration was undoubtedly, demonstrably a success."

You are correct that the inferior resources allocated to black schools in southern states was one of the causes of the Brown decision. However, since that time - very rapidly in some places, eventually in others - school funding was roughly equalized. Even James Coleman, the arch-integrationist sociologist cited in the original post, admitted that black schools had about the same funding as white by 1966, 12yrs after Brown. And since that time, even when predominantly black schools were given vastly larger amounts of money than neighboring predominantly white ones, in an effort to lure whites into the black district because of its superior facilities, programs, etc., the effort failed, integration failed. The most infamous example of this is the Kansas City experiment of the late 1980's - early 90's. Google it. An incredible amount of money was taken out of the pockets of mainly white taxpayers and put into the KC schools, all for nought. Whites wouldn't go back. So, your last statement is flat out wrong.

"You also point out that you are not going to address integration in the suburban schools. Is this because it would refute many of your points. Look at RISD. This is a district that was a great school district - and almost all upper class and white - when I attended in the early 90's. It is a now a great school district that is majority minority, and large percentage low income."

Why are you asking why I didn't address integration in the suburbs? I explained why in the OP - the OP had gotten too long to deal with the suburbs in a detailed way. However, a quick answer to your assertion that RISD is still a great district now that it's majority-minority. It's not. It's a troubled district. Didn't you hear what happened at Berkner in the early '90's? Or Lake Highlands HS fairly recently? Murders in the parking lot. Violence, falling test scores, etc. JJ Pierce is the only RISD highschool which has maintained its standards over the past 20 years. It's also the only majority white high school in RISD. Lake Highlands HS, which maintained its standards by a rigorous tracking system(and was majority white until fairly recently), was able to keep its standards up through the 90's, but now it, too has declined. Measurably DECLINED: its averge SAT score has gone DOWN. LHHS used to produce at least 6 National Merit Semifinalists each year, sometimes more. Last year: 2.

"You also can point out that DISD resisted for 10 years, and then began large scale integration in the 70's. True enough I suppose, but let us point out what the real attitude was in DISD at the time. The city declared itself desegregated in 1967, which was simply a lie, so the city was willing fight integration tooth and nail. They fought actively in court until into the 1980's this was hardly a willing, well implemented desegregation."

According to the original Brown decision, DISD WAS de-segregated in 1967. The problem was - as pointed out in the OP - that the courts kept changing the definition of de-segregation. You don't have to believe me. Read DESEGREGATING SCHOOLS IN DALLAS, by Glenn Linden, a pro-integration professor. So it was not "simply a lie." What DISD fought against was the destruction of their school district through mis-guided social engineering. I don't blame them for that one bit.

".....Again see RISD, a district that embraced changing demographics, and moved on very successfully."

I just love that phrase, "...embraced changing demographics..." Rich. But, as demonstrated above, RISD did not move "on very successfully."


"Is your argument that in 35 years it hasn't happened yet? Okay but in the last 30 years the rate of interracial marriage has doubled. Not just Black/White, but all the races intermarry more in each generation. In 1966 Interracial marriage was still illegal in Texas. Today it is 18% of marriages. That certainly is a lot of change in that direction.This is just a fact. I'm not arguing that it is an inherent good It is neither inherently good or bad, you marry who you fall in love with, and race shouldn't matter a bit."

The rate of interracial marriage, especially black-white, is still extremely small. Your 18% is for all interracial marriages, between all races, right?

[dubeaux]

Originally Posted by Macbeth2003

Ignoring the fact that much of what you just said is usually code for a white supremacy agenda, ie "I'm not a white supremacist, I just want to keep away from those other races," You do have the right to send your children to a non-diverse school. Many private schools have a very low percentage of non-whites. What you don't have is a right to do so at public expense, and in so doing keep non-whites in an inferior school.

Explain how what I said is code for a white supremacy agenda. Whites have every right to exert their rights and flex their muscles and do whatever they can do within the law to send their children to a non-diverse public school if that's what they want. There is nothing in the law or Constitution which mandates "diverse schools," unless a district is under a court order similar to the five separate de-segregation orders which wrecked the Dallas schools. No right to do so at public expense? Of course they do. And, I remind you, white parents pay taxes, too.

[Macbeth2003]

Originally Posted by dubeaux

You are correct that the inferior resources allocated to black schools in southern states was one of the causes of the Brown decision. However, since that time - very rapidly in some places, eventually in others - school funding was roughly equalized. Even James Coleman, the arch-integrationist sociologist cited in the original post, admitted that black schools had about the same funding as white by 1966, 12yrs after Brown. And since that time, even when predominantly black schools were given vastly larger amounts of money than neighboring predominantly white ones, in an effort to lure whites into the black district because of its superior facilities, programs, etc., the effort failed, integration failed. The most infamous example of this is the Kansas City experiment of the late 1980's - early 90's. Google it. An incredible amount of money was taken out of the pockets of mainly white taxpayers and put into the KC schools, all for nought. Whites wouldn't go back. So, your last statement is flat out wrong.

Are you this ignorant, or do you just make things up? One man may have said that black schools and white schools had equal funding by 1966, but many MANY others have said, and many courts found, that to be untrue. It is your statement that is flat out wrong, not mine. According to those I know who were in both "white" and "black" schools at the time, the black schools frequently got the cast offs from the white schools. Your Kansas City argument is not a response to anything I said. When did I argue that you could draw whites back by funding majority black schools more highly?

Originally Posted by dubeaux

Why are you asking why I didn't address integration in the suburbs? I explained why in the OP - the OP had gotten too long to deal with the suburbs in a detailed way. However, a quick answer to your assertion that RISD is still a great district now that it's majority-minority. It's not. It's a troubled district. Didn't you hear what happened at Berkner in the early '90's? Or Lake Highlands HS fairly recently? Murders in the parking lot. Violence, falling test scores, etc. JJ Pierce is the only RISD highschool which has maintained its standards over the past 20 years. It's also the only majority white high school in RISD. Lake Highlands HS, which maintained its standards by a rigorous tracking system(and was majority white until fairly recently), was able to keep its standards up through the 90's, but now it, too has declined. Measurably DECLINED: its averge SAT score has gone DOWN. LHHS used to produce at least 6 National Merit Semifinalists each year, sometimes more. Last year: 2.

You did explain, but I don't believe you. You used non DISD districts as examples when you felt they backed your points, ie Highland Park, just not when they might not support your points. As for murders and violence, I love how you site a couple of anecdotal events and try and conclude there is a pattern.. 'remember when My Honda, and my friends Honda both only lasted a few years, must mean Honda's arent' reliable." I didn't say there haven't been hiccups, any change to a complex system causes hiccups, even if the change ends up being good. The fact remains RISD is a great school district. As for your "rigorous tracking systems." May I point out those are decided by ambition and achievement. Yes we could discuss how that ends up making them largely white and asian, but those are cultural differences that are shifting. IN addition when I was in school, starting in elementary kids were seperated out for reading and math into groups by performance level, reading groups, math groups, etc. This is done much LESS today so these "tracking programs" are done less than the were, not more.

Originally Posted by dubeaux

According to the original Brown decision, DISD WAS de-segregated in 1967. The problem was - as pointed out in the OP - that the courts kept changing the definition of de-segregation. You don't have to believe me. Read DESEGREGATING SCHOOLS IN DALLAS, by Glenn Linden, a pro-integration professor. So it was not "simply a lie." What DISD fought against was the destruction of their school district through mis-guided social engineering. I don't blame them for that one bit.

Well the courts didn't agree with you, by no reasonable definition was Dallas desegregated in 1967, sorry it wasn't. The word desegregated has a meaning, and the meaning of that word clearly did not meet the state of Dallas schools in the 1960's. What the school fought was any attempt to treat the races equally , and like most people I do blame them for that.

Originally Posted by dubeaux

I just love that phrase, "...embraced changing demographics..." Rich. But, as demonstrated above, RISD did not move "on very successfully."

Well to most of us who don't ave a history of appalling racism (for those who doubt this poster does see his posts in the one other thread he started) This is not a "rich phrase' and your cherry picking of one or two facts does not hide the fact that RISD did move on very successfully. It is still a district people intentionally move into for the schools. The schools are still very competitive, and the district has been featured nationally as a model for how districts should handle shifting racial, and economic makeups.

Originally Posted by dubeaux

The rate of interracial marriage, especially black-white, is still extremely small. Your 18% is for all interracial marriages, between all races, right?

Is it majority... no, but it is growing. Yes the number is overall. Given that it was illegal in large parts of the US as recently as 66, this is a HUGE percentage, and reflects a huge social change.

Originally Posted by dubeaux

Explain how what I said is code for a white supremacy agenda. Whites have every right to exert their rights and flex their muscles and do whatever they can do within the law to send their children to a non-diverse public school if that's what they want. There is nothing in the law or Constitution which mandates "diverse schools," unless a district is under a court order similar to the five separate de-segregation orders which wrecked the Dallas schools. No right to do so at public expense? Of course they do. And, I remind you, white parents pay taxes, too.

Now see this is funny. You ask that question and then follow it with a demand that you not only have the right to racially segregated schools, but you have the right to insist the state segregate your kids in public schools, forcing the vast majority of people who do not support segregation, to pay for it.

If there is any doubt you are a white supremacist I remind you, and others, of your posts in your "Diversity is nothing to be celebrated" thread from earlier this year. In that thread you said any number of blacks in a neighborhood was a problem, and that immigration should be restricted to whites only. Those statements and your demand for public, taxpayer funded segregated schools, are the definition of a white supremacist. You may not be burning crosses on people's lawns, but you clearly think one race is superior to others, and should be granted more rights (Ie the exclusive right to immigrate) That is the textbook definition of white supremacist.