04-15-2006, 12:24 AM
I'm confused... Call me dense and uninformed, but judging by what I read in the article I don't see how this qualifies as segregation or racism.
I see a state dividing a large school district into 3 separate districts so that the schools are more closely managed by the parents of the children that attend them. The lines of division just happen to create districts that have different ethnic majorities.
The article says "...the Legislature voted Thursday to divide the Omaha school system into three districts one mostly black, one predominantly white and one largely Hispanic." They're not forcing all blacks into one school, all hispanics into another, and all whites into another.
Again, from the article --"There is no intent to create segregation," said Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, the Legislature's only black senator and a longtime critic of the school system.
He argued that the district is already segregated, because it no longer buses students for integration and instead requires them to attend their neighborhood school. -- The neighborhoods around the schools just happen to have different majorities.
This looks to me like a bit of media sensationalism intended to cause a ruckus over what is really a non-issue. "Boundaries for the newly created districts would be drawn using current high school attendance areas." The lines are being drawn by locality and attendance. The racial difference is just a coincidental result.
If the entire district was dominated by one ethnic group, the exact same law could be passed and no one would notice. But because the area is ethnically diverse, different majorities are created by the division and opponents are pointing that out claiming that it's segregation. I disagree.
This law does not rob anyone of their basic human rights or dignity. It's intended to empower locals to have more control over the schools that their children attend.
On the other hand, if state funding for these districts is divided unevenly based on the ethnic majorities represented or other privileges are extended to some but to not others, then I do have a problem with that. I would have a major problem with that. But I don't see that kind of favoritism in the situation described in this article.
I see a state dividing a large school district into 3 separate districts so that the schools are more closely managed by the parents of the children that attend them. The lines of division just happen to create districts that have different ethnic majorities.
The article says "...the Legislature voted Thursday to divide the Omaha school system into three districts one mostly black, one predominantly white and one largely Hispanic." They're not forcing all blacks into one school, all hispanics into another, and all whites into another.
Again, from the article --"There is no intent to create segregation," said Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, the Legislature's only black senator and a longtime critic of the school system.
He argued that the district is already segregated, because it no longer buses students for integration and instead requires them to attend their neighborhood school. -- The neighborhoods around the schools just happen to have different majorities.
This looks to me like a bit of media sensationalism intended to cause a ruckus over what is really a non-issue. "Boundaries for the newly created districts would be drawn using current high school attendance areas." The lines are being drawn by locality and attendance. The racial difference is just a coincidental result.
If the entire district was dominated by one ethnic group, the exact same law could be passed and no one would notice. But because the area is ethnically diverse, different majorities are created by the division and opponents are pointing that out claiming that it's segregation. I disagree.
This law does not rob anyone of their basic human rights or dignity. It's intended to empower locals to have more control over the schools that their children attend.
On the other hand, if state funding for these districts is divided unevenly based on the ethnic majorities represented or other privileges are extended to some but to not others, then I do have a problem with that. I would have a major problem with that. But I don't see that kind of favoritism in the situation described in this article.
--Copadope