Omaha Schools now Segregated
 

http://www.ketv.com/politics/8673309/detail.html
This may just be rubbish to many of you, but it has gained national attention.

The Nebraska legislature passed a bill today that literally segregates the cities schools. Basically they have split the city into three districts, North Omaha (large black community), South Omaha (a mix of white and hispanics) and West Omaha (lily White suburbia). There in preventing the rich white kids in West Omaha from being exposed to criminal blacks, illegal hispanics and white trash. Absolute paranoia. Shame on my city.

ugh. just ugh.

Well, it seems that it's based on location.
I haven't read the article yet; I'm just going by what you've said.
The city segregated itself.
The blacks chose to live with the blacks, the hispanics with hispanics, and white with whites.
It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Let me read the article.

Sure its based on location. But mostly money, and white parents afraid of inner city kids attending their schools.

It has EVERYTHING to do with geographical location.

I'm moving to Omaha!

can you blame them?

unless we teach our inner-city black youth that a) they are not inherently inferior by mere virtue of the amount of melanin in their skin, and b) that, conversely, neither are they superior for that reason alone, and consequently they deserve no special privileges or different treatment because of the circumstances of their birth -- then, and only then, will we rid ourselves of the scourge of crime, poverty, and lack of education surrounding the black community today, and only then will we honestly be able to live together in peace. we seriously need everyone -- black, white, hispanic, asian, green with pink polka dots -- to understand that they are individuals, and that no one should be treated any differently except in virtue of differences in one's own personal character.

and, by the way, that is the most profoundly ANTI-racist remark anyone could possibly make.

nicely said, qprogeny

but as an self-described Objectivist, qprogeny79, why would you care at all? Honestly, your post sounds rather phony & hollow to me. Now I do believe one should help a drowning man unlike Ayn Rand does. However, if hypothetically, Ayn Rand herself were drowning before my very eyes I would relish the opportunity to stand by & cheer & perhaps dance a jig.

Race is determined by geographical ancestry. The part of race that is culturally instilled will always be there unless true free enterprise, representation & truly equitable justice under the law are restored. On top of that it's going to take time...lots & lots of time. Only then will there be a chance for ignorance & apathy to be overcome.

Let me make it clear that I most definitely am concerned & that what we see happening in Omaha is yet more of the same rotten fruits of puffed-up Republican pride coming to bear.

didn't phil collins write a song about that????

Was it "I don't care anymore"?

I don't think it was "sussudio" but I could be wrong

my painting teacher lived in Omaha when she was young.

I was specifically alluding to the urban legend surrounding this song, but sometimes i type things for my own entertainment and i guess i can't expect anyone else to be in on the joke:

"Well, if you told me you were drowning
I would not lend a hand
I've seen your face before my friend
But I don't know if you know who I am
Well, I was there and I saw what you did
I saw it with my own two eyes
So you can wipe off the grin, I know where you've been
It's all been a pack of lies
And I can feel it coming in the air tonight, Oh Lord
I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, Oh Lord
I can feel it in the air tonight, Oh Lord, Oh Lord
And I've been waiting for this moment all my life, Oh Lord, Oh Lord
Well I remember, I remember don't worry
How could I ever forget, it's the first time, the last time we ever met
But I know the reason why you keep your silence up, no you don't fool me
The hurt doesn't show, but the pain still grows
It's no stranger to you or me

Conversly, let's make sure we teach equality to suburban white's too.. and actually practice equality. It's a white power base, so it's vital they get that message.

Segregated schools sucks. It's just wrong.

i hardly believe that in these areas anyone is chosing to live in their respective areas. i'm willing to place my money on the notion that the poorer "inner city" inhabitants live where they do because they can't afford to live anywhere else. it is a big deal because it's creating an even larger educational gap between those who attend these higher funded schools with better prepared teachers and those who have coaches to teach every subject (read: ill prepared teachers).

i went to middle school (5th and 6th) at a magnet school. it was built in the inner city. the school was predominantly spanish speaking/bilingual (75 %).

it is more commen for kids to attend schools closest to where they live, and often times where people live is segragated, but not always.

i have been to omaha for my flight. i was visiting my boyfriends relatives in sioux city. there are other ethnic groups, too like native americans (often times they prefer to call themselves indians) and asians. it seems most often that these groups are not accounted for.

quite frankly i am glad. its about time someone did something about those meddling middle class white kids.

ok, i just read the article. again, this article is making it seem like this never happens, but it happens all of the time, usually because of location of schools and who lives where the schools are built. the problem is much bigger than schools. prisons are soooo segragated, by the choice of the inmates. they segragate theselves. then again those are criminals, so i would imagine the morale is different.

i am sure they could build the schools in a more central location that people from many areas could attend. i am sure there are lots of places schools could be built that everyone could take a bus to. why not?

Before I throw my two cents in, does anyone have more background information on this issue? For example, upon what was the decision to create new districts based?

I believe it is based on the notion of segregation as a positive, in that the education system can focus more on the problems of the inner city i.e.

Nobody deserves to be exposed to white trash.

On the serious side, that is pretty ridiculous, but I'm sure it is hugely common.

I'm not saying this never happens, I'm sure cities switch up their school districts all the time, but how can you justify government allowing the schools to be split up the way they have been split up? Why does there have to be three districts rather than two or even one? There has been months of build up for this, the inner city schools campaigned with the slogan 'One City, One School District' which is pretty much based on common sense, right?

The Omaha World Herald ran a week long story on how other cities around the country have dealed with issues like this, and the results were quite varied. I can't remember all the school districts they profiled, but Hartford, Conn. was one of them. Either way, I can't imagine this happening if this wasn't such a red state.

Qprogeny, obviously, you are not racist. With that being said. Your logic does not work well in this city, or other regional cities for that matter, such as Kansas City or St. Louis.

first off, rand never said that one should never help a drowning man. obviously if a baby were drowning in a puddle it would be seriously wrong to not help him out by any moral standard. to rand, such decisions should be based upon the value you place on the drowning person; it is justified to save a loved one at any cost, and it is also justified to save a total stranger, who is of potential value, provided you don't incur such enormous risk in the process that your own life would be severely jeopardized (of course, risking one's life to save a stranger would be irrational, since few people value their own life any more than that of a random stranger -- lifeguards at the beach use this principle every day when they set limits as to the risk they allow themselves to incur to save people, as well as when they post "swim at your own risk" warnings during storms). the problem with this, to my mind, is that it seems to indicate that we are justified in letting enemies drown even if we would incur no risk in saving them; the golden rule seems to apply more here than rand wishes to recognize.

i agree with the sentiments about free enterprise and equal justice. the problem with american culture in particular is that we spend too much time harping on "black culture" and "hispanic culture" and "women's studies" and the like, as though they were bona fide cultural entities. "diversity" does not consist in an "equitable" amalgam of racial/gender/ethnic groups but in a diversity of ideas. the only reason why we might actually get such diversity by throwing a bunch of eskimos, chinese women, saudis, and latinas in a mixmaster is because we teach everyone, in american society at least, that the content of their minds is actually determined by such frivolous matters as their genitalia and the region of the world from which their ancestors emigrated.

when i went to my 5 and 6th grade school, it was the biggest and best school and it was in the worst part of town. for high school there were only three choices, the largest was central and by the name i am sure you can tell it was for everyone to attend, and everyone did, from all parts of town. the third was a tech school. this was in massachusetts which is a blue state.

damn you had me laughing Patty

in the air tonight

i all this shit in the news about the white house easter egg hunt being attended by non-traditional gay & lesbian families & the coverage it's getting sickens me...
i went to desegregated schools thanks to the greatest president of my lifetime, Jimmy Carter.

i call it like i see it

culled from google (with parenthetical asides):

Rather than being extremist, Objectivism is a middle ground between doubt and certainty. (in other words, it's a pseudo-new-age philosophy; the Ayn Rand brand of secular humanism. Members understandably get mad when you call them a "cult" too...after all, they've wen throguh such extremes to banish relgion & God from their system...but that's what Objectivism is...it's a cult plain & simple.)

Objectivism is against altruism which is the sacrifice of the self and sacrifice of others. In epistemology, Objectivism upholds reason, not faith (i agree with some Objectivist points about free enterprise being the best economic system, but I highly disagree that religion can teach us nothing. In just about every case a major religion's prophet brought relavatory wisdom to the word; & in nearly every case as well, after the prophet dies the followers take a big shit all over everthing with their dogma)
In ethics, Objectivism upholds egoism which is neither sacrifice oneself or others. (this is preposterous. Upholds egoism? So basically it's satanism with some good 'ol fashion capitalist values thrown in to make it presentable...no wonder it grew to be so damn popular in the 1980s)
In politics, Objectivism upholds libertarianism government dedicated to natural rights) instead of anarchism extreme of individual action or statism (extreme of governmental action).
(I'm better than everyone else libretarianism bullshit...why not focus on campaign finance reform or a constitutional amendment to end repeat terms of office? I guess that would really accomplish change. The Objectivist is not out to make the world a better place, you see. The Objectivist cares only about themselves)


"When we insist that facts are facts, that right is right, as against the rampant subjectivism of the age, we can easily forget that facts and values must be grasped by people, each acting on his independent judgment. We run the risk of adopting the attitudes and policies of the intrinsicist. When we emphasize that the true and the good are contextual, when we oppose the imposition of dogma and duty, we can easily forget that opinions and preferences are not all on a par--that some are right and others aren’t. We run the risk of subjectivism. To be objective, we have to hold both sets of considerations in mind, both reality and personal context."
David Kelley, Truth and Toleration, p2-3.
(Yeah, that's the old "your opinion is no better than mine... after all it's only an opinion" bullshit. Einstein changed all that for good. Read a real book.)

uuh . . . so where do you get the "egoism = satanism" parallel? egoism has been around quite a bit longer than anton lavey (aristotle, anyone?). "egoism" isn't necessarily concerned with narrow self-interest -- more with rational conduct in accord with the metaphysical requirements of human survival. to kill someone because you feel like it or to spend all your money on beer when your kids are starving is NOT "egoistic" in the objectivist sense.

regarding the cult charge -- i've said it before and i'll say it again, objectivism is not INHERENTLY a cult. it only has that reputation because there are those who accept it as the very dogmatic faith rand abhors rather than thinking about it and weighing it against alternative philosophies. it seems that EVERY philosophy that offers an integrated worldview automatically gets branded as a "cult" -- it's the ultimate smear term for those who haven't honestly thought about its tenets.

hegel kant whateva

I think the idea of splitting a city up into different school districts isn't inherently bad. It all depends on the funding going to these districts, and who is going to be put in charge of them. People who grow up in suburbia behave differently than people who grow up in the inner city. If yr creating a situation where people are put in charge of educating their children the way that is most appropriate for them, instead of having to make sacrifices in the name of multi-cultural compromises, then I think everyone will win. If the motivation behind this is to keep the lower classes in their proper places, both geographically and economically, then obviously its no good. I'm not so sure where I'm going with this... I think the more localized things are, the better they work. Yadda yadda yadda.

PS: If I saw Ayn Rand drowning in a lake, I'd throw rocks at her just so that I could say that I did my part.