this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
485 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2750 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Drivebyhaiku 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You know... For a second when he was talking about Brown V Board of Education I wondered if he maybe he was actually going to refer to some of the major desegregation issues. Like how a lot of quality education was actually negatively impacted because the way it was handled. Desegregation caused a massive firing of black teachers because parents of white kids coming into previously black only schools pulled all manner of nonsense like "Well what if my sparkling white menstruating girl child has to share a room with a male black teacher.. That's just wrong! " (yup... That was a 'legit' concern from white parents of the time) or how sudden staff redundancies would two teachers one from the black school and the other from the white to be considered and the one chosen to stay was damn near always from the white school despite the teachers being both very qualified. The narrative of "well the black schools were impoverished with budget staff and students had sub par outcomes so we should choose the 'most qualified' candidate " was a lot of the justification used at the time and a lot of it was blatantly untrue... The black schools may have seen less infrastructure funding but the teachers were just as good. That lack of black teachers also spiraled into a lot of biases on behalf of the sudden white dominant teacher population that turned black students into "problem children" amd second class citizens in schools where they had once been absolutely comfortable causing a lot of issues to domino out from that move.

I doubt that's his reasons because it seems like Clarence Thomas is well bought and paid for....But... Maybe it's coming from a genuine place? He's old enough to have seen that change happen first hand and be very negatively effected... If so maybe he does fondly remember an all black school? His takeway may be influenced by that kind of rosy nostalgic lens.