Liberal racism in Berkeley?: Cut h.s. science labs for “diversity’s” sake!

[andymays]

Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs
The proposal would trade labs seen as benefiting white students for resources to help struggling students.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/be...nt?oid=1536705

Excerpt:

The proposal to put the science-lab cuts on the table was approved recently by Berkeley High's School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students who oversee a plan to change the structure of the high school to address Berkeley's dismal racial achievement gap, where white students are doing far better than the state average while black and Latino students are doing worse.

Paul Gibson, an alternate parent representative on the School Governance Council, said that information presented at council meetings suggests that the science labs were largely classes for white students. He said the decision to consider cutting the labs in order to redirect resources to underperforming students was virtually unanimous.

[Tom]

And yet another excuse for failure.
I am in favor of diversity, though.

[boxcar]

This story vindicates what I have been saying for a long time about socialism, Affirmative Action, etc. When libs/statists/socialists talk about "leveling the playing field", they're really talking about bringing the achievers, the producers and such DOWN to the level of the underachievers, unproductive, educationally-challenged types. Socialism will never, never take this latter group and and try to RAISE them to HIGHER levels; for such policies and actions would actually be self-defeating to socialist ideology. In this story, the two-prong goal of the policy is to keep the underachievers down (and ultimately make them dependent upon the state) and to bring down their white counterparts who, hopefully, will become as dumbed down as their underachieving counterparts and, therefore, become dependent upon the state, too.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Dear Mr. Vindicated,

Let's say you run a football team. Your linebackers suck but your defensive line and DB's are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

Knute

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Dear Mr. Vindicated,

Let's say you run a football team. Your linebackers suck but your defensive line and DB's are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

Knute

Don't think for a minute that I agree with Boxcar et al, but what this plan seems to say is, we are going to work to bring our linebackers up to par. And by the way, we're taking the helmets and shoulder pads away from our DB's And DL.
Time to go aggravate Boxcar.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Dear Mr. Vindicated,

Let's say you run a football team. Your linebackers suck but your defensive line and DB's are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

Knute

As usual, a very poor attempt at an analogy. In the game scenario, the talented defensive line isn't going to suffer because no money is being spent on them. In fact, they will be helped if the team can buy some talented players because the team's chances for success will be increased. But in the school scenario, the classes that the whites excel in and obviously like are being cut, and money will, instead, be spent on the "underprivileged, the educationally-challenged at the expense of their smarter, white counterparts. It's clear from the article, the school is not at all really concerned about any negative impacts the redirected funds will have on the smarter, white people; they're entirely concerned with the people of color, which in itself is discriminatory. The school is going to give preferences to the "minorities", which will come at the expense of the whites. Social engineering at its worst, especially since it's been proven time and again that throwing money at a poor education system that is loaded with undisciplined kids to begin with never works! The money would have been better spent staying right where it was so that those kids with some real, proven potential would have a chance of doing something with their lives.

Moreover, bright eyes, when did learning in school become essentially a team effort? Learning and studying is primarily an individual effort where individual grades and diplomas are earned. My schoolmates never contributed very much to my overally education. My parents, my teachers and yours truly, however, were basically the "team".

Anymore bright analogies, Mr. Grad, from Dumb Down U?

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Schools throughout the state of Golden are disparaged by those kids that aspire to lofty goals of being gangsters, cocktail waitresses or drug addicts.

It's been a shame what has happened to the ratings of CA schools as a result of these malcontents. If they don't want to learn, punch 'em out and make room for those that do.

Berkeley should spend more time encouraging women to grow underarm hair, burning their bra's and wearing Berkenstock sandals and stay out of the classroom.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As usual, a very poor attempt at an analogy.

I agree. It was a lousy analogy. I guess I just couldn't let your feeling vindicated go by the boards!

But I will say this. The article did not say science classes were being eliminated - just science labs. Not sure I agree these labs are the equivalent of helmets and shoulder pads, Mostpost. Of course, it's possible that I just did not appreciate my time in science labs in high school.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This story vindicates what I have been saying for a long time about socialism, Affirmative Action, etc. When libs/statists/socialists talk about "leveling the playing field", they're really talking about bringing the achievers, the producers and such DOWN to the level of the underachievers, unproductive, educationally-challenged types. Socialism will never, never take this latter group and and try to RAISE them to HIGHER levels; for such policies and actions would actually be self-defeating to socialist ideology. In this story, the two-prong goal of the policy is to keep the underachievers down (and ultimately make them dependent upon the state) and to bring down their white counterparts who, hopefully, will become as dumbed down as their underachieving counterparts and, therefore, become dependent upon the state, too.

Boxcar

It has nothing to do with being socialists, or libs, or statists. It has to do with being knuckleheads. And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society. So every time a school district asks for money to fund a needed program, a hue and cry is raised, the funding is denied, the program is cut and the students are left out. Yet there is always enough money for another bomb, another bullet, or another missile.
I just finished reading the Wikipedia article on Socialism. It says Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the group. This could be the state. This could be the workers themselves. Wikipedia says that the purpose of this, according to Socialist theory, is to give everyone the OPPORTUNITY to benefit from this control, rather than just a few. (emphasis mine)
I am a liberal. I am not a socialist. I have no idea what a statist is except a word that conservatives made up. I believe in a mixed economy with a capitalist base for products and services provided to and for individuals,*
and socialist (or public) control of areas that effect the commons. (roads, electricity, public safety, education, access to health care to name some)
I do not think that helping some improve their life means that someone else's life must be diminished. In fact I think everyone benefits when more people are elevated.
You think the world is a zero sum game and you lose any time anyone else wins.

*Things such as cars, furniture, food, clothes, drinks, entertainment, insurance (with oversight), and many others should be provided by private enterprise.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

I agree. It was a lousy analogy. I guess I just couldn't let your feeling vindicated go by the boards!

But I will say this. The article did not say science classes were being eliminated - just science labs. Not sure I agree these labs are the equivalent of helmets and shoulder pads, Mostpost. Of course, it's possible that I just did not appreciate my time in science labs in high school.

Comparing science labs to helmets and shoulder pads wasn't the best idea I ever had. What I was trying to convey was that taking something away from one group, something which is a part of its success, is not the way to help another group.
I don't think that Boxcar, Tom and company have any right to criticize the school board's action when they continually oppose any funding for programs which might alleviate the problem. I suspect they are opposed to public education on principle.

[LottaKash]

Another step forward, in the "Dumbing-Down of America".....

best,

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by mostpost

It has nothing to do with being socialists, or libs, or statists. It has to do with being knuckleheads. And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society...

I think its a bit of a stretch to equate an outcry about siphoning funds from one program to another under questionable pretenses to the presumption that all conservatives don't feel obligated to support the community.

In fact, I think it is plain ignorant to make an assertion such as that third sentence.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I think its a bit of a stretch to equate an outcry about siphoning funds from one program to another under questionable pretenses to the presumption that all conservatives don't feel obligated to support the community.

In fact, I think it is plain ignorant to make an assertion such as that third sentence.

Sorry, but that is the impression I get from numerous posts about everyone looking out for themselves; and comments about how "I got mine, too bad about everybody else" How many times have I read here about how we should get rid of Social Security and Medicare is socialized medicine.

[bigmack]

This is where Mosty really gets jazzed. He gets the opportunity to figure out in his own little world how he would dictate to other people their conduct & the channeling of funding.

Success doesn't rise to the surface, you ask for anyone with any level of success to bite the bullet and suffer for those who have little in the way of effort towards the cause at hand.

'All for one' and all get brought down by the lowest common denominators. No point in some succeeding if others have little reason to even try. Overall, they each become less than mediocre. But we treated them all the same.

[Tom]

The proper analogy would be if your defense sucked and your offense was good, to tell the offense to score 30 more points a game, to compensate for the porous defense. and perhaps make some of the good players play double duty at the same pay, to help out the poor defenders. Eventually, your good players will leave and you will left with.....the Buffalo Bills.