Where Are the Most Segregated Schools? In Liberal States!, Of Course!

jdub297

benrl

Elton
And many neighborhoods are segregated in large cities whether by design or economics (and no, I won't let you bus my kid across town to fill a quota).

Why?

Is it for fear that your children might not achieve the same education they would near by?

Is it they may mingle with a different socio-economic class than they would?

Or is it just down to the inconvenience in the change of distance?

Just curious.

Perhaps it's because in the 60-year history of "busing," there has not been a single success story of any scale.

"Community" means more than socio-economics in many places. I grew up in a neighborhood with people of many levels of economic success; there were low-income, rental housing and "rich" homes. My classmates were just as likely to be named "Pruske," "Wilhelm," or "Garcia" as "Jones."

What we all had in common were shared values and a desire to help each other without reliance on government. Single moms and people without jobs were assisted by their neighbors; there was no "welfare mentality." Senior year, the class president was white and the valedictorian was Latino; the prom king was black and the prom queen white.

I was raised in South Texas and we learned to live together very early on.
One advantage we had over everyone else were a multitude of military bases within a few miles, and the active-duty and retired members and civilian employees populated the area with people from every nationality and ethnicity.

benrl

jdub297
reply to post by benrl

 

In this "post-racial" era of American life and politics, it should not matter or make any difference in any interaction between government and citizrn.

You plan for the world you live in, not the one you'd like to.

People are inherently tribal, to deny that, is to deny human nature.

Some people are better at others at overcoming their baser instincts, others like to wallow in them.

Gryphon66
So ... let's see. By this logic if a State has a) a certain political bent and also has b) a certain notoriety for some arbitrary reason, then of course it follows that c) the reason for the notoriety is the predominant political preference of the residents?

Let's see if that holds up:

Following the same logic, since New York also leads in computer-science education that means that Liberals are the only ones who care about providing educational opportunities in computer science. Right?

And since California leads the nation in updating its electric grid, then obviously, Liberals are the only ones who care about energy delivery efficiency. Right?

Let's turn the cart around the other way. Since Georgia leads the nation in bank failures, obviously, Conservatives just don't know how to run a bank, right?

And here's one that will really bring the point home ... since Texas leads the nation in Obamacare enrollments, why, that must mean that Conservatives LOVE them Obamacare, right?

Basic logic is simply invaluable. "Non causa pro causa"aka the Fallacy of False Cause: "You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other."

Illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A common example of this phenomenon would be when people form false associations between membership in a statistical minority group and rare (typically negative) behaviors as variables that are novel or salient tend to capture the attention.[1] This is one way stereotypes form and endure.[2][3] David Hamilton and Terrence Rose (1980) found that stereotypes can lead people to expect certain groups and traits to fit together, and then to overestimate the frequency with which these correlations actually occur.[4]

sheepslayer247
I think the entire premise of the OP's sources would fall into the category of being illusory correlations.

Illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A common example of this phenomenon would be when people form false associations between membership in a statistical minority group and rare (typically negative) behaviors as variables that are novel or salient tend to capture the attention.[1] This is one way stereotypes form and endure.[2][3] David Hamilton and Terrence Rose (1980) found that stereotypes can lead people to expect certain groups and traits to fit together, and then to overestimate the frequency with which these correlations actually occur.[4]

Link

Also, using the term 'segregation' implies that there is an active policy or movement to segregate people along certain racial or economic lines. Obviously, there is no such policy or movement in effect.

So I must assume this entire topic is nothing more than a political hit-piece on liberals.

Skyfloating
I`ve been in L.A. and Chicago numerous times and have never liked how segregated their neighborhoods are. There are very well defined lines and you're usually either in an all-black neighborhood or all-white. In New York I don't get that feeling. Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx and even Harlem you`ll see whites, latinos and blacks living side by side. The super-strict segregation of places like Chicago and L.A. is weird to me and I`ve wondered why that is.