Op/Ed By Howard Eagle –
With regard to a relatively small, local group of white, bleeding-heart, super-liberals, and their completely unrealistic, school-integration-pipe-dream-organization, i.e., so-called “Great Schools for All” — clearly, Black folks (by and large) are not listening, but then, neither are white folks (by and large).
Two of the key leaders, John Wilkinson and Lynette Sparks, of the overwhelmingly, predominantly-white, pipe-dream-peddling-organization, recently utilized the readily available, “Mess-Makers and Those Who Know Better” platform-and-mouthpiece, i.e., the demagogue and comical ( http://minorityreporter.net/snake-oil-solutions-critique-of-novice-mess-makers-and-those-who-know-better/ ) to spout off about a recent event that the lily-white organization sponsored: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2017/11/18/we-dont-need-sacrifice-any-our-children/863997001/.
As it relates to what I would characterize (in some cases) as misinformation (at best) — relative to grossly-warped, if not disingenuous perspectives contained in the editorial at the latter link above, the authors boasted that, when New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones spoke at their church recently, the “sanctuary [was] packed,” but what they did not point out is that visually, even for someone with impaired vision, the large crowd resembled a small black fly in a huge bowl of fresh buttermilk.
The headline of the bleeding-heart editorial, as well as the thoroughly rhetorical question that Nikole Hannah-Jones raised during her speech at the church, i,e., “whose children should be sacrificed?” — is absolutely offensive. Until and unless those whose children have been, and still are being systematically failed, and are suffering the most, organize ourselves, and collectively demand no more, and mean it — we all know the answer to the silly, offensive question concerning who will be sacrificed? Let’s not play rhetorical, intellectual games — because again, such calculated maneuvers are insulting and thoroughly offensive.
Close examination of old-time, unrealistic, integrationist arguments, reveals blatantly contradictory, and thoroughly unsound “reasoning” and/or “logic.” For example, a fundamental problem and issue is the fact that, apparently (based on illogical, integrationist arguments), implementation of racially-integrated schools (in the distant by-and-by) will solve a different set of problems for predominantly, poor Black people and other poor people of color vis-a-vis “middle class and more affluent [overwhelmingly, predominantly WHITE] families,” i.e., for those in the first category above, the problem that will be solved is — they will no longer be “isolated in extremely poor urban school districts” (even though they will inevitably return home at the end of each school day to isolated, extremely poor urban neighborhoods). On the other hand, the problem that will be solved for those who fit into the second category is — they will have “opportunities for real-world interaction with people not like themselves.”
Does this dual, dichotomous “reasoning” not contain a fundamental flaw?
The integrationists’ arguments are also flawed relative to their shallow, unsubstantiated claims that ” integration is the only tool that has proven effective in closing the achievement gap between rich and poor, black and brown and white.” The bottom line is that (overall, in the main) the so-called “achievement gap” has never been closed, and is nearly as gaping today as it was 50 years ago ( https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/13/achievement-gap-between-white-and-black-students-still-gaping ). Additionally, there is absolutely no doubt what so ever about the crystal-clear flaws regarding the claim that “integration is the only policy that deepens empathy and understanding across class and racial lines,” which is purely unscientific, unsubstantiated conjecture, wishful-thinking — if not pure fallacy. There is absolutely no credible, conclusive, research-based-evidence that backs the latter referenced, wild claim.
Again, the shallow idea that “segregation makes the world small, rather than opening the doors education should open” — is fundamentally short-sighted and flawed, i.e., it is not segregation (in and of itself) that so-called “makes the world small.”
On the contrary, it is deep-seated, thoroughly pervasive, historic and ongoing individual, institutional, and structural racism, which are thoroughly bound up together, completely intertwined, and totally inseparable from one another, and which underlies segregation — “that makes the world small.”
This is why Nikole Hannah-Jones told the white folks at the church, with regard to widespread resistance to school integration, they seemed to think she was talking about someone else, but she was in fact talking about many of them and their parents, as well as many of their children. She noted that the hard-core segregationists of yester-year didn’t disappear, but instead went “underground,” and of course produced and raised the next generation of segregationists — period.
Many of them don’t seem to get this (I’m certain because the associated, race-based, cognitive dissonance is just too much, too deep to deal with). So, they just pretend that it’s not part of reality, or find explanations to rationalize it into oblivion.
The most blatant, fundamentally-hypocritical contradiction in all of this, which possibly hinges on the above referenced factor that “makes the world small” — is the author’s’ unsubstantiated, rhetorical contention that “Great Schools supports Rochester Superintendent Barbara Deane-Williams’ efforts to fix a broken bureaucracy, boost reading scores, experiment with neighborhood schools, and build bridges to parents.”
The operative question is HOW (specifically) do they so-called “support Superintendent Barbara Deane-Williams?”
As it relates to the vitally important element of “support” — this is not a time for super-hyper, non-substantive, abstract, super-liberal rhetoric. Support needs to be substantive, concrete, and measurable. Otherwise, it’s nothing more or less than a bunch of insignificant rhetoric and noise. With regard to this particular situation, what makes the bleeding-heart-bandits think that it’s OK to single-out Barbara Deane-Williams? After-all, Deane-Williams is the only Superintendent within the 21 separate school districts in Monroe County, in which the Board of Education has (in my humble, but staunch view), taken the silly step of passing a formal Resolution to actually “explore the feasibility of a regional school designed to attract a diverse student body,” ( https://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/inching-toward-a-regional-school/Content?oid=3758010 ). Where are Pittsford’s, Penfield’s, Webster’s, Hilton’s, Spencerport’s, etc… Resolutions? Shouldn’t so-called “Great Schools” be raising the latter question? http://www2.monroecounty.gov/government-schools.php
As it relates to the grossly convoluted-conflation that “we have normalized segregation and sacrifice thousands of kids every year to preserve our isolation” — the critically important, vital question, which needs to be answered in a straight-forward, thorough and honest manner is — who is it (specifically) that have “normalized segregation to preserve [whose] isolation?” The bottom line is that powerless people cannot “normalize” nor “preserve” inequitable institutions, and/or conditions. Within racist societies in particular — such as the thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based U.S. nation-state — only those of the powerful, “dominant” race are able to normalize racial segregation in order to preserve their racial isolation — period.
In the final analysis, attempts to racially integrate public schools in Monroe County, New York State, and/or anywhere else in the thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based U.S. nation-state is clearly a matter of Chasing Pipe Dreams, and here’s why: