Liberal Hypocrisy and local politics

One of the things I've always found funny about progressives and liberals is the hypocrisy. I've often stated that the best way to really understand how liberals feel about something is to see what they do in their own lives. What I mean by that liberal progressives will often advocate for something until it affects them directly, at which point they usually will take the conservative position.

What I've found kind of comical is to see how liberals advocate for certain policies nationally but then do the complete opposite in their local political arena OR they can't connect dots to see how their position on national issues results in things they disagree with locally. I think this disconnect is because generally progressives advocate for policies as long as they aren't personally responsible for said policies. They vote for higher taxes for EVERYONE ELSE except themselves.

I saw two stories today that just made me chuckle. The first is a big brouhaha on the Upper West Side of New York City. As many people may know, public schools are a huge issue not just in NYC, but all over. Parents scrape and save to buy homes in school districts with good schools. We can debate why some schools are good and others aren't, but by in large, the schools reflect the residents they serve. In other words, the schools on the Upper West Side are very good as they primarily serve the very wealthy. Anyway, the public schools in NY have decided that there isn't enough diversity in the public schools, so they have decreed that 25% of the seats will need to be set aside for diversity... i.e., lower income blacks and Hispanics primarily are going to get seats at some of these schools so they aren't lily white. What is going to happen is that some of the kids who would be at the school will essentially be moved to other "lesser performing schools".

Of course, the Upper West Side parents are fuming mad about this... they've paid millions of dollars to live in this community and now being told their kid may be kicked out of the school so kids from poorer areas can attend, while the rich kids get sent to other schools which may not be as good in the name of diversity.

A video has been making the rounds showing the angry parents yelling at the school administrators over the plan.

Watch Room Full of Rich White Parents Complain About Diversity Plan

Of course, what makes me chuckle is that 95% of the people in that room probably are raging liberals. I mean this is the sh*t you voted for, right? Diversity. Inclusion. When you vote for Democrat policies, this is the stuff they do. I feel like these parents are getting slapped in the face with reality.

The second story is in my own local community which is also a wealthy, very liberal town. However, we abut next to one of the worst neighborhoods in Chicago. Our local schools are excellent. Some of the best in the city.

We have a huge issue with parents from Chicago, lying about residency so their kids can attend our public schools. They will basically find a relative, friend, or someone who will allow them to use a local address so their kid can attend our schools.

Quite naturally, the residents are upset because we pay a ton in property taxes to support our local schools. Some of the highest in the country. A modest tax bill in this community is $10,000/yr. Larger homes can have property tax bills of $25,000/yr or more. Property taxes are essentially the "tuition" to pay for the public schools. When someone attends our school and they don't actually live in our community, their education is being subsidized by the tax payers.

Anyway, given our tax bills, the schools are cracking down on this issue.

What is hypocritical about it though is that these are the same liberals who will run around supporting DACA, open borders, illegal immigrants, etc. I mean, cannot these idiots not connect the dots?

So Dreamers are fine as long as someone else is paying for them? But the "dreamers" in Chicago who want to illegally use our public schools should be prosecuted because your property tax bill is too high?

So again, they support a national policy based on emotion, but then do the complete opposite when essentially the same policy is implemented locally and it affects them directly.

a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

The Chicago area hypocrisy sounds like River Forest !!

😎

a reply to: Edumakated


In your first example, those parents aren't upset about racial diversity, they're upset because the school is accepting students who are below the educational standards of the classrooms they're being placed in, bringing the "learning curve" down and slowing down the education of student who are performing up to educational standards.

You second example, if students are using addresses to get into a school, the people who own the homes whose addresses are being used are paying taxes, that go to the public schools in their area, even if they don't have kids. People who have kids don't pay more taxes than the ones who don't. Schools get funding based on student count, not on how many kids live in the neighborhood.

So, hypocrisy alert fail, in my opinion.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

But they aren't going to sacrifice their own kid's education for that goal... that is the point.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Edumakated


In your first example, those parents aren't upset about racial diversity, they're upset because the school is accepting students who are below the educational standards of the classrooms they're being placed in, bring the "learning curve" down and slowing down the education of student who are performing to educational standards.

You second example, if students are using addresses to get into a school, the people who own the homes whose addresses are being used are paying taxes, that go to the public schools in their area, even if they don't have kids. People who have kids don't pay more taxes than the ones who don't. Schools get funding based on student count, not on how many kids live in the neighborhood.

So, hypocrisy alert fail, in my opinion.

I agree with you that the parents are upset about lowering the standards of the school. I support the parents. However, the point is that the liberal position would be to take the kids from disadvantaged homes and put them into the school. These parents are doing the opposite of the liberal position.

The other issue is that the spaces in the school are limited. So to hold 25% of the spots for the other kids, means that 25% of the students are going to be forced into another school. That is what they are upset about. If you watch the video, there is a parent saying "telling an 11 year old they have to go somewhere else" is what this is referring to...

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

Yeah but they have no clue how to do that so they make everyone stay where they are.

Bad schools or what.

That's not very progressive.

Seems like some fascist BS to me.

No friggin choice?!

Home school army!

First thing to blow up are the crying booths and safe spaces with the bunnie and crayons.

LOl,

a reply to: Edumakated

I agree with you that the parents are upset about lowering the standards of the school. I support the parents. However, the point is that the liberal position would be to take the kids from disadvantaged homes and put them into the school. These parents are doing the opposite of the liberal position.

If I were a parent there, I would suggest that student not performing to standard be place in some kind of remedial class, so as not to slow down my kid's education.

The other issue is that the spaces in the school are limited. So to hold 25% of the spots for the other kids, means that 25% of the students are going to be forced into another school. That is what they are upset about. If you watch the video, there is a parent saying "telling an 11 year old they have to go somewhere else" is what this is referring to...

Well that does suck! My husband and I just bought a house in a nice neighborhood with good schools, and we're trying to start a family. If my kid couldn't go to the school, that we already checked out and made our decision to buy partly based on the school district, as a liberal progressive, I would be pissed! Does that make me a hypocrit or a middle of the road conservative/liberal?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Edumakated


In your first example, those parents aren't upset about racial diversity, they're upset because the school is accepting students who are below the educational standards of the classrooms they're being placed in, bring the "learning curve" down and slowing down the education of student who are performing to educational standards.

You second example, if students are using addresses to get into a school, the people who own the homes whose addresses are being used are paying taxes, that go to the public schools in their area, even if they don't have kids. People who have kids don't pay more taxes than the ones who don't. Schools get funding based on student count, not on how many kids live in the neighborhood.

So, hypocrisy alert fail, in my opinion.

For my second example, your point is totally irrelevant. The schools are funded by the residents of the community through our property taxes. When kids attend who DO NOT LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, they are not paying the cost to attend the school. Renters in our community pay indirectly through their rent from the landlord who pays property taxes.

The additional kids attending means the school needs additional resources.

The other issue is that most of these kids are typically not coming from the best homes. As such, they do in fact, often bring down the overall academic excellence of the school.

We do have some liberals here who don't have an issue. I once proposed they offer a scholarship out of their own money so these kids can attend. In other words, if it cost $15,000 a year to educate a student at our high school, they should put up $15k of their own money to sponsor these kids attending.

I actually support school choice. I just have a problem with these kids not paying for it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If you have scrimped, saved and sacrificed to buy a property or rent an apartment in one of these districts for the express purpose of getting your kid into one of these schools and then you find out that your kid might still end up bumped into a lesser district to make way for a kid whose parents didn't do the things you've done for the chance ...

How do you think you'd feel about it?

You're right in that they likely aren't mad about the kids coming in per se, but they are mad about the possibility of seeing their own kids get less or get bumped despite everything they've done to prevent it and safeguard their future.

But these same people likely think nothing of it when they're advocating that the same sorts of things happen to other people and their children.

a reply to: Edumakated

I agree with school choice as well.

If we're all going to pay property taxes, then that money should follow our children rather than the bureaucrats dictating where our taxes go and then mandating our children attend there.

It might free up the system to create educations better suited to different learners as well.

a reply to: Edumakated

The schools are funded by the residents of the community through our property taxes.

Right. But you said that they're using friends or relatives addresses, and those friends and relative ARE paying taxes. I don't really see a big problem as to whether or not the kids are physically sleeping and eating at that address...the taxes are being paid, in both school districts. Schools get funding based on student count. The more students, the more funding.

You're thinking of a Betsy DeVos' problem. She wants to take tax payer money away from public schools and give it to private schools and home schoolers. Then you're going to see the quality of public schools go down across the board.

The other issue is that most of these kids are typically not coming from the best homes. As such, they do in fact, often bring down the overall academic excellence of the school.

Not fair. Bad kids come from well off families just as easily and as often as from low income families.

I just have a problem with these kids not paying for it.

Do you think people from low income areas should be restricted from driving on Beverly Hills roads, for example, since the roads are better there, because tax payers there pay more in taxes?

Like I said, every house in the area is paying taxes, whether they have kids or not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Those kids don't get to attend those schools for the same reason that I don't get to vote in Kansas even though I have relatives who live there and pay taxes there.

However, you are making a very good argument for school choice. You *do* seem to think the money should follow the kid. You just don't like the idea that not everyone may want their money to go to schools you don't personally approve of.

Poetic justice is served Drink up!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

Then you liberals need to reign in upon the problem kids in public schools, not overlook them for public funding. It only takes one disruptive individual to spoil an education for the other 20 or 30 kids in class.

Fix that problem and all schools will be good schools.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

Is it worth pouring our money into a school where the teachers nor the students *edit nor the parents* give a darn?

a reply to: ketsuko

However, you are making a very good argument for school choice. You *do* seem to think the money should follow the kid. You just don't like the idea that not everyone may want their money to go to schools you don't personally approve of.

Not necessarily. I do think DeVos' plan opens a can of worms as far as public education is concerned, and she doesn't seem to willing to impose the same federal guidelines on private schools to receive federal funding that public schools are required to follow. That's a problem for me.

I know the popular perception of homeschoolers it that they're all crazy Christian fundies, but it ignores a growing subset of homeschooling parents who are liberal and another segment -- parents who have children who are both intellectually gifted and who have learning disabilities that make a simple day at a public school a real struggle. Sometimes, the only way for both ends of that spectrum to be met is for the parents to go it alone or in a coop setting.

There are also a growing subset of minority parents who have voted no confidence in the public schools who homeschool.

If the system will not chance in response to a growing range of people who feel it inadequate, then perhaps school choice will help to bring that on. It needs change, not more money. It has been receiving more money for a long, long time with no evidence of any real improvement.

What is the definition of insanity again?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then don't use one and keep your money in the public system. It sounds to me like you've made all the sacrifices to make sure your kids will be insulated from the crappy system anyhow.

Me?

We're looking at working with the school system still, but there may come a point where homeschool is an option.