The Bigotry of Low Expectations

I am still in a state of shock over the following report:

The Alabama Federation of Republican Women (AFRW) strongly opposes “race-based standards for student achievement” pushed by the Alabama Department of Education, as reported in The Tuscaloosa News on Sunday, June 30. Minority students will be held to a lower standard, and would be tracked at a lower standard throughout their academic career from K-12.

Beginning this fall, the liberal Department of Education in Alabama will take their racism and apply it to education – how wonderful. Obviously progressive liberals believe that those children, and adults for that matter, of a minority skin color are handicapped, and incapable living a life on their own without assistance from the government, or a helping hand from the altruistic agenda of the progressives. This is just beyond belief, and I feel so sorry for those kids in that school district who don’t stand a chance if progressive liberals continue to run this country. Instead of offering school choice, allowing parents the opportunity to send their children to better schools, with better teachers, and giving them a real opportunity at success, progressives have decided to dumb things down even more, effectively destroying any chance these kids might have. It’s outrageous.

 

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “The Bigotry of Low Expectations

  1. 02casper July 12, 2013 / 2:03 pm

    cluster,
    The standards were adopted by the state board of education in November 2010. The board is currently made up of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The Department of Education is doing what Board wants them to do.

    • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 2:07 pm

      Oh well – that makes it better. As long it is board sanctioned racism. Good thinking.

      • 02casper July 12, 2013 / 4:01 pm

        “Oh well – that makes it better. As long it is board sanctioned racism.”

        Since the board is made up mostly of Republicans, does that mean this is Republican sanctioned racism?

      • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 4:33 pm

        meow….

      • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 4:53 pm

        It is sanctioned racism regardless of who supports it Casper. I am sorry that the labels of R or D seem to matter more to you than doing what’s right.

      • 02casper July 12, 2013 / 5:33 pm

        “Cluster Post authorJuly 12, 2013 at 4:53 pm

        It is sanctioned racism regardless of who supports it Casper. I am sorry that the labels of R or D seem to matter more to you than doing what’s right.”

        I agree. However, you are the one who assumed that this was being implimented by liberals.

      • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 5:57 pm

        This is a liberal mindset Casper, whether there is an R or a D behind it. Not all R’s are conservative. And this is definitely NOT a conservative approach.

      • 02casper July 12, 2013 / 6:06 pm

        “Cluster Post authorJuly 12, 2013 at 5:57 pm

        This is a liberal mindset Casper, whether there is an R or a D behind it. Not all R’s are conservative. And this is definitely NOT a conservative approach.”

        Since I also oppose race based standards for student achievement, I guess that means that I have a conservative mind set.

      • 02casper July 12, 2013 / 6:30 pm

        Cluster,
        Personally, I don’t believe there is any such thing as a liberal or conservative mind set. I believe we are all individuals and that each of us has a number of beliefs and values, some which might be considered liberal, others conservative.

      • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 6:30 pm

        “…Since I also oppose race based standards for student achievement, I guess that means that I have a conservative mind set….”

        And you very well might. One reason I continually return to the idea of examining candidates and making voting decisions based on objective analysis of the best way to govern the nation is that I believe that if we could do this, and sever the unexamined emotional ties to the identity of the Democrat Party, many people would find that their view of the best way to govern the nation is actually very much in line with that of conservatives.

        This is why the Left is so dependent on “issues” because as long as they can distract the easily led by dangling emotionally charged issues in front of them, so they focus on these instead of on the actual point of debate—-the choice of political model—-they can prevail.

        I have proved this point over and over again on this blog, year after year, when I challenge Lefties to explain why they vote the way they do. Not one time has any of you ever explained that you have a sincere objective belief in the Marxist ideology that now defines the Democrat Party, but instead you focus exclusively on personality, scandal, identity, and emotion-based issues, falling back on wholly emotion-based stereotypes of the opposition.

      • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 6:33 pm

        “Personally, I don’t believe there is any such thing as a liberal or conservative mind set.”

        Of course you don’t. Because that would mean an expectation that you would understand the difference between the two, analyze the two, and make an intelligent decision between the two based on objective commitment to a specific, clearly defined, political ideology.

        You are one of those whose comfort zone is in the muddled middle, where emotion rules, where you can hang your hat on “values” and such instead of having to take responsibility for becoming a thinking person who operates from a basis of actual knowledge.

      • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 6:41 pm

        “…a number of beliefs and values, some which might be considered liberal, others conservative….”

        Well, we ARE talking about politics here, and it is impossible to have a conservative mindset regarding a commitment to a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority left to the states or to the people and at the same time have some Liberal political beliefs, as the two are polar opposites and antithetical to each other. Leftist ideology is about large central government with essentially unlimited size, scope and power.

        Now if you veer away from the demanding and evidently scary arena of actual political thought into that fuzzy-minded emotion-driven area of wafting back and forth depending on how any given thing appeals to you emotionally, or repels you because of your blind acceptance of stereotypes, you will find it quite consistent to be kinda this, kinda that.

        I see you trying to pretend that being vague and drifty is really an acceptance of the obvious fact that we are all individuals—-quite a “DUH!!!” moment even for you——but get over yourself.

      • 02casper July 12, 2013 / 7:09 pm

        “I have proved this point over and over again on this blog, year after year, when I challenge Lefties to explain why they vote the way they do. Not one time has any of you ever explained that you have a sincere objective belief in the Marxist ideology that now defines the Democrat Party, but instead you focus exclusively on personality, scandal, identity, and emotion-based issues, falling back on wholly emotion-based stereotypes of the opposition.”

        Maybe that’s because the Democrat Party isn’t Marxist, at least the way you want to define Marxist ideology. I’ve seen a number of liberals post their reasons for voting the way they do and in each case you reject their explanations and attack them for what YOU think they believe. You have a tendency to fall back on wholly emotion-based stereotypes of what you think liberals are.

      • Amazona July 13, 2013 / 10:53 am

        casper whines: ” I’ve seen a number of liberals post their reasons for voting the way they do……”

        Yes, you have. We all have. And what have we seen, in these posts about the reasons they vote the way they do?

        We have seen the political version of the Miss America contest interview answers: “Well, you know, I vote for Democrats because I, like, believe in FAIRNESS, and, you know, I think we need to take care of THE CHILDREN, and we need to LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, and, and, uh, we need UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, and, uh, oh yeah, the 1 % needs to pay ITS FAIR SHARE, and STAY OUT OF MY VAGINA, and, uh, EQUALITY FOR GAYS, and, you know, there were NO WMDs, and, uh, IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT.

        And I have looked at every single reason given by every single Lefty who has bothered to answer my question, and I have yet to see one—ONE !!! —-response that has anything at all to with an explanation about why the Leftist (Marxist) political model of huge and infinitely expandable federal government with control and authority over all aspects of life in this country is a better way to govern than the Constitutional model of a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority left to the states or to the people.

        I have not see an explanation of why this is better, or a defense of it based on historical successes when this has been applied in other nations, or a theory about how to accomplish this without defying or discarding our current rule of law—our Constitution.

        You whimper “…… and in each case you reject their explanations and attack them for what YOU think they believe.”

        Sadly, I think you actually believe this. I say “sadly” because as an educator you ought to be able to process information better than you obviously do.

        But, to take what you say, let’s look at that. And what do we get? Well, we get a highly emotional response, in the claim that my rejection of their “explanations” as political theory and my identification of them as emotion-based reactions to issues rather than political philosophy is really an “attack” on them. And furthermore, that I am “attacking” them for what I think they believe.

        Sorry that pointing out the superficiality of such “explanations” hits so close to home that you feel this constitutes an “attack”. But really, casper, to then add that you think I am “attacking” people only for what I “think they believe” is just downright stupid.

        Take the hysterical defensive word “attack” out of the equation, and look at the rest of your sentence. You are saying my reaction is not to what is actually said, but only to my personal interpretation of what is said. Boy, talk about projection!!

        No, cappy, projection is your area of expertise. I do not respond to what I merely “think they believe” but to what they actually SAY THEY BELIEVE. Duh.

        If I am wrong, then please cite any Lefty but James who has actually come out and said what he thinks is the best political model. And even James never said why he believes in his Marxist political philosophy, or explains it, or defends it. He just says he thinks it is right. And even that is more than you and your fellow travelers have been able/willing to do.

        Just because, as a poster boy unexamined Liberal you don’t know the difference between what you THINK and what you FEEL, and furthermore believe they are one and the same, doesn’t mean that I am wrong when I point out that you, for example, have never given anything but an emotion-based rationale for any of the things you have supported here.

        Ever.

        Not one.

        As for your silly claim that I “….have a tendency to fall back on wholly emotion-based stereotypes of what (I) think liberals are….” all you have to do is prove me wrong.

        Let me help. I think the garden variety run-of-the-mill Liberal, like you, is one who has a very poor understanding not only of what the Constitution says but of why it was specifically written to say what it says, and who lacks a coherent political philosophy but who is emotion-driven to support “issues” rather than to objectively analyze the opposing political models, evaluate them, and commit to one or the other. I further suggest that Liberals, the same unexamined garden variety Liberals who base their decisions on their emotional responses to platitudes and manipulative messaging, are ignorant of the historical records of the two opposing political models, and that the little they do know is dismissed as “mere history” and irrelevant to what they believe today.

        There. This is what you call my “…. wholly emotion-based stereotypes of what (I) think liberals are….” .

        Go ahead. Prove me wrong starting with you.

        Explain your POLITICAL philosophy. Which of the two opposing political models do you believe is the best form of government for the United States? And don’t try to weasel out of this by ducking into the “but there are MANY political models, you can’t claim there are only two” evasion tactic. Here and now, in this country, at this time, we have only two political models from which to choose. Everything else is but a point along the spectrum within each model.

        So——-is your political philosophy that of the Constitutional model, that of a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority vested in the states or in the people? Or is it that of a large and powerful and expansive central government, which has unrestricted authority to do whatever is determined is best at any given time?

    • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 4:40 pm

      As usual, casper, like any good little Lefty, is hung up on identity instead of actual ideology. Poor lad, he will never be able to grasp the simple fact that calling oneself a Republican does not mean one actually believes in and promotes the principles that once guided the Republican Party, any more than he can process the fact that calling oneself a Democrat does not mean there is any comprehension of the fact that the current Dem party bears no resemblance at all to the former, principled, anti-communist party of, say, JFK. (The real JFK, not the Oopa Loopa JF’nK)

      When your view is all about Identity Politics, it is easy to post such inane comments as we see so regularly from catty lil’ cappy.

      • bardolf2 July 12, 2013 / 5:36 pm

        The problem with your line of reasoning is that the post itself starts with identity politics.

        It casts the ‘Republican Women’ as the opposers of lower standards and the ‘liberal department of education’ as wanting to lower standards. Casper merely pointed out that the Department of Ed basically does what a board with a majority GOP politicians would like.

        Maybe some in the GOP in Alabama have fallen for the ‘lower the standards now so that federal money continues to flow in so that one can improve the standards later’ fallacy. This belief is not uncommon in Republican circles.

      • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 6:00 pm

        It’s a progressive/liberal mindset barstool, and that’s an ideological observation not an identity one. As I told Casper, just because you have an R behind your name, it doesn’t mean you’re a conservative. Look at John McCain.

      • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 6:47 pm

        dolf, just how would you write a story about a specific group opposing something without identifying that group?

        casper, on the other hand, tried to make some simpering point by pointing out that some of the people who voted for the proposal are members of the same group.

        So? While it is legitimate to note that some people with the same political identity think one way and others another, it is a retreat to mindless Identity Politics to try to imply that there is some deep meaning behind this. Nonsense.

        Cluster accurately describes a tenet of a clearly defined political ideology, which is far different than just simpering that “Gee, some Republicans voted the other way” tee hee tee hee.

    • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 4:54 pm

      I notice that casper, as usual, dodges the point of the thread topic, preferring instead to remain in his comfort zone of tossing out what he seems to think are biting zingers but what are really just peevish snarls.

      The point conservatives have been trying to make for years is that Affirmative Action is cruelly, blatantly, racist, in the most hateful incarnation of that term. It is an official statement that certain people, identified by the color of their skin, are simply not equal to those who qualify as ‘white’ and therefore we must lower expectations of them.

      AA and its ugly stepsisters, like race-based standards for student achievement, are based on the core belief of those who think their race makes them superior and that people of darker skin are severely limited in their intellect and ability, and must be treated with condescension and acknowledgment of their limitations.

      This is a horrid practice, an institutionalized racism that not only demeans those identified as inferior but has the effect of depriving those who do succeed of true respect for their accomplishments, as there will always be the assumption that they did not get where they are due to intelligence, diligence, and hard work but merely because some condescending white people gave them some token degrees or appointments or titles.

      The entire Left is becoming identified with this condescending attitude. Sure, Mike and Larry, we’ll say you’re really married—now go play house. Sure, Sally, we’ll pretend your degree means you are smart and worked hard, though we know better. Sure, kids, we’ll look the other way and pretend we didn’t see you make all those mistakes on the playing field, and give you the same trophies we give the kids who practiced so hard so they could do it right.

      It’s the worst of everything the Left stands for—–dumbing down and racist stereotyping and institutionalized determination to keep people on the bottom rungs of the ladder.

  2. Jeremiah July 12, 2013 / 2:25 pm

    Indoctrination of the student body has been around since the middle-latter half of the 20th century. The removal of prayer, and the introduction of evolution in schools in the ’60s caused a major reduction in morality in our country. Which coincides with the lack of work ethic in America…combine welfare with the advocacy of immoral behavior, and you have a recipe for destruction. Charles Darwin is to blame for much of the racist tendencies that continue to plague American society today.

    Standards in American education for over 300 years were the Bible and there came an end to those practices in the 1960’s in favor of Darwinism, and ‘coincidentally’ right about that time there was a sharp increase in std’s, drug use, child abuse, premarital sex, homosexuality (all of which have been encouraged in public education to one degree or another) .. all kinds of moral indicators…and it continues to wax worse and worse to the present day.

  3. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) July 12, 2013 / 3:05 pm

    progressives have decided to dumb things down even more, effectively destroying any chance these kids might have.

    This is actually a throw-back to the days of slavery when slaves weren’t allowed to become educated for fear they would rise up and overthrow their masters. Same idea, slightly different plantation, plus it works (from a Progressive POV).

    • Amazona July 12, 2013 / 4:41 pm

      Certainly an educated citizenry would pose the greatest threat to the Left, but one kept both ignorant and in a constant state of hysterical outrage is putty in their hands.

  4. Amazona July 12, 2013 / 5:08 pm

    Personally, I am far less shocked by this than by the blase acceptance of the fact that the Executive Branch of the United States government inserted itself into a local incident with the intent of making it into a national race scandal. There is little or no outrage at the news that the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch, sent people to Sanford Florida specifically to support black race pimps and help them organize rallies that were designed to stir up racial hatred.

    This was before the President of the United States publicly threw some gasoline on the fire by stating that if he had a son, he would have looked like the dead youth. This was before the Attorney General looked off into the distance, whistling under his breath, as a mob publicly put a bounty on the head of a man not even charged with a crime, because those offering to pay people to commit murder are black and the target is white. (Or at least identified as white, to fan the flames of the politically necessary racial unrest.)

    No, from the very beginning a decision was made at the highest level of our government, within the Executive Branch itself, to take an active role in creating and expanding racial hatred, using government employees to support these efforts.

    I find this much more appalling than the thread’s outline of more Affirmative Action, as awful as that is.

    • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 5:21 pm

      I am with you Amazona, the State Depts role in helping organize and pay for race motivated rallies is unbelievable and the medias disinterest in it is even more appalling. Obama and his acolytes have gone out of their way to divide this country down racial and economic lines.

      • M. Noonan July 12, 2013 / 7:38 pm

        No, they weren’t – they ginned up public demands for the prosecution of Zimmerman after the Sanford authorities had determined Zimmerman had acted in self defense. If they were “mediating” then they wouldn’t have only got together with Martin supporters and family members.

      • 02casper July 12, 2013 / 8:07 pm

        “M. Noonan July 12, 2013 at 7:38 pm

        No, they weren’t – they ginned up public demands for the prosecution of Zimmerman after the Sanford authorities had determined Zimmerman had acted in self defense. If they were “mediating” then they wouldn’t have only got together with Martin supporters and family members.”

        Your evidence on this?

      • M. Noonan July 12, 2013 / 9:22 pm
      • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 8:11 pm

        Mediating would have meant protecting Zimmermans rights too. As it was, Zimmerman had to go into hiding. But that being said, what is the state dept doing intervening in small local isolated crime issue? Why aren’t they in Chicago?

      • Amazona July 13, 2013 / 9:55 am

        From an article by John Fund: (emphasis mine)

        The website for the CRS claims it “does not take sides among disputing parties” and only provides “impartial conciliation and mediation services.” But the evidence of its activities in Sanford shows that it placed a large thumb on the scales of justice in the Zimmerman case. What can providing support for a “March for Trayvon Martin” rally headlined by the rabble-rousing Reverend Al Sharpton have to do with “conciliation and mediation”?

        From top to bottom, the handling of the Zimmerman case was marinated in racial political correctness. Lee, the former Sanford police chief, told CNN this week that he faced severe pressure from outside forces to conduct his investigation in an unprofessional way so as to placate the public. “It was [relayed] to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn’t care if it got dismissed later,” he said. “You don’t do that.” Lee told CNN that arresting Zimmerman based on the evidence he had collected would have violated Zimmerman’s Fourth Amendment rights. But he said political influence “forced a change in the course of the normal criminal-justice process. . . . That investigation was taken away from us. We weren’t able to complete it.”

        The article goes on to comment on the background for such unprecedented and inappropriate federal intervention on a local affair and the determination to blow it up into a national race issue:

        “I wondered back in 2008 how the federal government’s focus would change with a left-wing “community organizer” installed as president. We now have a partial answer. It appears that some of the tactics and approaches ACORN used have been moved into the Justice Department and other federal agencies. In the old days, when individual appropriations bills for federal agencies were still passed by Congress, it was possible to defund groups like ACORN. But now, with congressional gridlock ensuring that federal agencies are financed by dubious annual spending resolutions that simply continue existing program funding, any effective oversight by Congress is a dead letter. The question now isn’t really how many other left-wing “community organizing” projects like the one at Justice are being subsidized by the Obama administration. The real issue is whether the entire Obama administration has basically become an enabler and cheerleader for every Saul Alinsky tactic its radical appointees want to embrace — from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s bullying local officials over public-housing construction demands to the Environmental Protection Agency’s colluding with environmentalist groups to lose lawsuits the groups file against the EPA in court.”

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353230/obamas-alinskyite-administration-john-fund

      • Amazona July 13, 2013 / 9:56 am

        As usual, casper illustrates for us the concept of GIGO.

        And, as usual, he illustrates for us the foolishness of depending on the GI to provide us with his own GO

  5. M. Noonan July 12, 2013 / 5:12 pm

    They just want to keep ’em ignorant and poor because they’re easier to please that way. Poor, ignorant people can be kept happy with an EBT card and an ObamaPhone…educated, well off people demand a bit more.

  6. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) July 12, 2013 / 6:43 pm

    • American Indian
    • Asian/Pacific islander
    • Black,
    • English language learners,
    • Hispanic,
    • Multi-race,
    • Poverty,
    • Special Education (which, btw, is considered Racist in California since the majority of this classification are from other than Western European Caucasian groups, so we use the term “Resource Student” to avoid damaging anyone’s self-respect or enflaming anyone’s Race-Centric self-esteem) and
    • White

    An interesting paradigm in that the overarching classification makes the delineation from sub-classes mutually exclusive. The pedagogic procedure is assignation by primary observable characteristics, and then to look no farther to determine if the classification is of greatest value.

    My blue-eyed, red haired Native American wife (Blackfoot) would receive special dispensation for academic deficiencies were she to be properly classified “American Indian” but would need to achieve at a different level because she would be observed and classified as “White”. As would my blue eyed, blond haired daughter.

    In any event, I as a teacher and a husband, fail to see how her father’s bloodline constrains, impedes or expands her educational capacity, and the mere fact that she must be classified before evaluated is curious.

    I see nothing in that list above that indicates learning disability or propensity other than the obvious “Special Ed”.

    Speaking of Special Ed; we should soon have a directive from our next president of UC on the specifics on spying on our fellow University Employees – provided they’re not of the Hispanic or Illegal variety.

    Big Sis, coming to a Post Secondary Educational Classroom near you!

    • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 7:10 pm

      You must be thrilled to have someone with such an impressive pedigree coming to run the UC school system. I will bet your excited for the off location conference sexcapades.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) July 12, 2013 / 7:40 pm

        Ah, to have the UC System running as efficiently as Homeland Security.

        With Inspector Clouseauatano’s keen grasp of the obvious and heavy reliance on verifiable information and ever watchful we’ll have more Tsarnaevs pound for pound than any other institution in America.

        Will we offer a degree program in Man Caused Disasters? Or is Napolitano a man-caused disaster? At least she has sufficient Ammo to guard the University … or will she guard the community against the University?

      • Cluster July 12, 2013 / 8:14 pm

        Or is Napolitano a man-caused disaster

        That’s a sexist comment. And I am not sure any man would want to own up to it.

      • Amazona July 13, 2013 / 10:00 am

        I have been under the impression that the disaster that is Janet Incompetano has never had anything to do with any man.

      • Amazona July 13, 2013 / 10:16 am

        But seriously, folks—it’s time to look at this from an analytical point of view.

        1. Just what has caused Big Sis to crawl out of the cozy supportive bubble of Liberal government into the equally (if not more so) protective bubble of the California university system? Is it just the humiliation of having one failure after another exposed by a handful of rogue journalists and commentators (while the Complicit Agenda Media study their fingernails and hum quietly) that has made her decide to find a place that will let her start over? Is there some big thing coming along we haven’t heard about yet? We know that cumulative failure is no big thing on the Left—after all, they gave Barry another term—-so what, exactly, is she dodging?

        2. What kind of pressure has been put on the California university system to make them agree to take her on? Surely no one with such a background can possibly be justified as an appointee for this position, to there must have been either a big stick or a bigger carrot involved to convince the regents to expose themselves to the ridicule they have invited for now and the rest of her term.

        3. We know that people are routinely rewarded for their assistance to the President—–the appointment of Jamie Gorelick to Fanny Mae (or is it Freddie Mac) as a big hug and thank you for setting up the wall assuring that various intelligence agencies could not compare notes on what they had learned about illegal foreign campaign contributions to Clinton is a prime example. Jamie now gets million-dollar bonuses, courtesy of the taxpayers, as a reward for her service. What kind of service did Big Sis provide to allow her to step into a cushy job like this one?

        In other words, did she finally prove to be such an embarrassment to the administration that she simply had to be moved out of the spotlight and this was a good way to shuffle her off out of DC? (Either her ongoing record of failure or something big and awful we don’t yet know about.) Or did she do something that was rewarded by a transfer to a well-paying gig where she could have status and not be subjected to public scrutiny?

      • Cluster July 13, 2013 / 12:14 pm

        All good questions and as we have we all become aware of, public service is the only arena where you can fail your way to another promotion. I think Valerie Jarrett is the poster child for failing your way to the top. The other day Ms Incompetano was asked about a career in public service for the younger generation, of which she enthusiastically endorsed – of course she did, in what other profession do you not have to be held accountable? Just an aside, before failing at her current post, Ms Incompetano was Governor of my state and left us in debt and disarray. My best wishes to the UC system.

      • Amazona July 13, 2013 / 1:27 pm

        I see that Senator John McSquish has praised Big Sis.

        Arizonans, are you people NUTS ?????

  7. Amazona July 13, 2013 / 2:05 pm

    We often talk about the Unintended Consequences of Leftist policies. Here are some relating to these lowered expectations.

    Let’s say there is a race called Cornelian, a race which has been identified by the Left as needing special treatment—in this case, lowered expectations via race-based standards for students.

    So, starting at kindergarten and going all the way through high school, white students are held to one standard and Cornelians, among other races and classes identified by the Left as also needing special consideration, are graded differently. This means that what would be a C for a white student would be an A for a Cornelian.

    OK, what problems could this possibly create? We get more Cornelians graduating from high school and that’s a good thing, right?

    Except for the fact that this sets up a whole range of reactions from the white students, from resentment at having what they worked so hard for handed out to others who have not earned it (though, in reality, this would just be preparation for real life outside of high school) to reinforcement of a perception that Cornelians are just not as smart or hard working as white people. Because if they were, they wouldn’t need these special considerations, right?

    So now we move on to college. Hmmmm. White students and Cornelians have pretty much the same grade averages, but the Cornelians just don’t know as much. What to do?

    Well, obviously there will have to be different standards for the Cornelians, because they simply can not and should not be expected to perform at the same level as those white kids. After all, isn’t that why these different standards were imposed back in kindergarten?

    Did any white students with good grades lose out in college admissions because Cornelians with pity grades took those slots? Who cares? Sure, the kids who did the work and earned their grades care, and their parents care, but in the overall scheme of things isn’t it just better to have those Cornelians going to the same schools as the high-performing white kids?

    Except———the resentment of Cornelians is now growing. Now we have anger at being edged out by people because of grades they have not earned, and we have the increased perception of the inherent inferiority of Cornelians, as well as a growing sense of entitlement felt by Cornelians, who have been taught that they simply should never be expected to meet the same standards as others. If this applies to grades in school, shouldn’t it apply to accountability for law-breaking? Basic social rules regarding courtesy, respect for others, morality, language, decency?

    So now there are different sets of expectations, which can often be defined as rules or even laws, due to the identities of the different groups. One group is expected to speak properly, not have litters of illegitimate children to be supported by the state, to work and pay their own way, to respect others, to follow the law. And the other is told, one way or another, that because they are so different regarding ability, they should always be held to a different standard.

    And we have a lot of Cornelians in medical school, for example, because those race-based standards have been carried on throughout secondary education and into graduate studies.

    By now, is there anyone who is not aware that while some of the Cornelian medical students really did earn their grades, learn what they were taught, and deserve to be where they are, most did not and do not. And those who really did do the work, really did accomplish what they have been given credit for, will not be respected for what they have accomplished because they will be lumped in with those who had the grades and school placements and degrees handed to them. They will always be identified as people who couldn’t make the grade without handouts.

    And the result of this is that there is a strong bias against going to Cornelian doctors, because of the perception that they are just less qualified than doctors of races not identified as needing special assistance. And then the only people who go to Cornelian doctors are other Cornelians, who then receive substandard care, perpetuating the whole victimhood mentality and keeping this race disadvantaged, and out of the mainstream.

    This little study can be extrapolated to any occupation. Who would want to fly in an airplane tended to by Cornelian mechanics, or flown by a Cornelian pilot, if it is common knowledge that there are and always have been lowered standards for Cornelians? Who would want their kids to be taught by Cornelian teachers, knowing that they have poor language skills and have never had to learn what the other teachers have had to learn to become teachers?

    And, you guessed it, these reactions to the fears of lower quality work from Cornelians would be identified as—RACISM.

    Which, of course, would lead to even more lowering of standards.

    And so it goes.

  8. Amazona July 13, 2013 / 10:12 pm

    On topic if we are talking about racism—-

    I have not watched any of the Zimmerman circus, knowing I would be outraged by the antics of the persecutors, but I did watch a little today to see what the verdict would be.

    It was a great relief to see justice prevail, after the relentless persecution of this man by our Executive Branch, the media, and the vile Left who have been howling for his head.

  9. neocon01 July 16, 2013 / 11:34 am

    Drudge

    ‘MODERN DAY LYNCHING’…
    SHARPTON PLANS PROTESTS IN 100 CITIES…
    Rally Shuts Down Major Intersection In Newark…
    Baltimore Witness: Group of Blacks Beat Hispanic Man, Yelling ‘This Is For Trayvon’…
    White jogger beaten…
    Protesters storm WALMART…
    Soul singer attacked after dedicating song to Trayvon…
    VIDEO: CBS Reporter, Photographer Attacked…
    LAPD vows crackdown…
    Zimmerman’s Parents in Hiding from ‘Enormous Amount of Death Threats’…
    Lawyer: Prosecutors ‘Disgrace to My Profession’…
    Verdict unleashed pent up rage…
    NUGENT: Vindicates citizen patrols, self-defense…

    STEVIE WONDER BOYCOTTS FLORIDA “stevie” WHO??? Bwaaaaahahaha

Comments are closed.