Jedi Council Forums - This is your President

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Author	Topic: This is your President
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/29/02 8:44pm Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/29/02 8:47pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
	I only have a moment (still solving the differential equations), but I wanted to point one thing out: Whether it's a good question or a bad question isn't my issue. It's a question the employer always asks... whether he/she bothers to actually ask you the question directly, the employer is asking it in their mind from résumé to interview to offer letter. It could be a wholly appropriate question in the interview, but it is a bad question for proving your point. You were demanding a specific answer to a question in a hypothetical situation without providing enough background for that situation. What sort of answer would you expect? Without a full scenario, how can I possibly answer? Your demanding an answer without sufficient background is illogical and distracts from the real issue. Ok, let's look at this study... here's some key statements I find rather peculiar: I notice that all of your quotes came from the summary page I linked to. Did you take the time to read any of the actual study (it's a PDF at the bottom of the page)? I know it's 24 pages, but at least in includes the actual data and analysis instead of being a media release writen by someone else who probably didn't perform the study. I'll try to find the relevant points in the study itself for you that address your points (such as the built in biases), but that will have to wait for later. Back to the equations. (I need to find where a an extra 2 came from.) Kimball Kinnison EDIT: One more bit: I believe the detriments to society as a whole, and not just the detriments to the individual, far outweigh the individual or societal benefits... such that I am not contesting whether or not gender segregation works sometimes... I'm simply saying there's no reason for me to vote to have federal funds contributed to this misguided cause... this red herring of a political platform. How do you intend to quantify the detriment to society? It is all good to claim there will be a detriment, but it is hard to prove unless you can quantify it. -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 5/29/02 9:22pm Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/29/02 9:26pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Kimball: The intent of the study you cited was not at all to measure the effects of gender segregation in schools in particular. The overall intent of this study was to identify the state of, problems associated with, and solutions for proper, responsible feedback of student performance data "for monitoring, accountability and improvement purposes" in the face of outcome-based education. In the US, outcome-based education has become a necessity due to the stringent demands of the increasingly competitive global marketplace. I scanned through every page of this study, and its scope had nothing to do with demonstrating the specific outcome of gender segregation either full-time or part-time in schools. Again, here we go presenting evidence which doesn't directly address the question being asked... From someone who is a physicist, I'd expect you to know better than to dance around the issue of this attempt of the Bush administration to plant a red herring--drawing attention away from all the other factors impeding our childrens' education at which Bush has, as a Governor and a President thus far, failed miserably in addressing. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/29/02 10:25pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	I should be in bed now, but: From someone who is a physicist, I'd expect you to know better than to dance around the issue of this attempt of the Bush administration to plant a red herring--drawing attention away from all the other factors impeding our childrens' education at which Bush has, as a Governor and a President thus far, failed miserably in addressing. That's funny. To me, it appears that YOU are the one "drawing attention away from all the other factors impeding our childrens' education". You are focusing on one single program option (in reality a clarification of the previous Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) in a bill that Bush signed. You seem to be completely ignoring the many other programs he approved along with that small clarification. Allow me to list a few for you: Expanding the Troops-to-Teachers Program (Title II, Part C, Sec 2302) Some of the best teachers I ever had were ex-military. An additional $1,000,000,000 in appropriations for improving technology in classrooms (Title II, Part D, Sec 2404 Increased funding for ESL programs (Title III Part A) The Dropout Prevention Act (Title I, Part H) and Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk (Title I, Part D) Establishing a Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund (Title II, Part A) Do you disagree with any of these provisions? If so, well I'm sorry, but that's life. It is highly unlikely that you will get a bill that everyone agrees with in its entirety. If you do, then the one portion (which was only a clarification of an existing policy) is just part of the compromise. That's the way a compromise works. Note that California started a trial program in 1997 to establish 12 same-sex public schools. This was allowed under the former policy (which is why Bush's addition is only a clarification, not a change). While many people have tried to use that program to disprove the effectiveness of public, same-sex schooling, it is important to note that the program was ended after a new administration took over in California, and the single report that has analyzed that (very short term) attempt was issued by the same administration that ended the program for political reasons. That (in my eyes, at least) makes that report fairly suspect. There was no opportunity to study the longer-term effects, yet then concluded that the long-term effects were negligible? That makes no sense. It has always been allowed. If you have a problem with it, it is not I who needs to contact my representatives to do something about it, but you. Your attempts to bring it up now are clouding the issue away from the other programs that Bush has begun to implement. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 5/30/02 6:22am Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/30/02 6:58am (6 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Kimball: First of all, thanks for bringing those things to my attention. However, I'm not convinced that Bush champions education in the way a President should... simply because he signs bills introduced by Congress doesn't equate to what I was talking about. I'm talking about leadership... championing the cause of education. If he signed any of these bills, funny I didn't hear as much about "The need for stronger arts, humanities and newer technologies in the classroom" as I have about the Ten Commandments, prayer time and gender segregation... everything your average 18th-century white Christian American might want in the classroom. Granted Bush alone isn't the one championing these rather obtuse ends... but this seems to be the way politicking has gone in the last 10 years or so. At any rate, I like how you completely segued away from having to acknowledge your error in digging up a study which doesn't prove your point any more than it proves mine. I also like how you avoided having to address the issue I'm actually concerned with.. which is simply the fact that this attempt in and of itself, is a red herring which seems to be getting much more attention from the Bush camp than these other issues. And what about the job interview situation? Instead of actually answering that, you danced around it. The question I essentially was trying to ask you was how you would sell yourself in spite of your disadvantage compared to other candidates. It doesn't matter what job you're interviewing for, you simply couldn't arrive at the most logical train of thought... you weren't even thinking of how you would position your gender-segregated education as an advantage instead of a disadvantage. I wasn't going to give you the map to that track because it's your job to think of it. That you didn't simply furthers my point... because if you really believed a gender segregated education was an advantage, you'd have told me how so... However, you said you didn't think it was a disadvantage. If I have to choose between two completely equal candidates, and one of them had to take the harder, more distracting path of education, and the other one didn't, but again they're completely equal in every other respect... you'd lose. So in one sense it is a rhetorical question, not merely looking for the "right" answer... there isn't one. I'm testing your character to see how you'd respond. I already know the outcome... but your approach wasn't to try to answer the question, it was to try to get around it. You pointed out your friends who've done "quite well". I'm willing to bet in every one of those scenarios there was something else that made them the better candidate... and not necessarily related to their gender-segregated portion of their education. So, my guess is they probably haven't faced this seemingly no-win scenario. You attempted at one point to say that gender-segregated education is an advantage because it provides something coeducational environments don't. However, if the other candidates have the same GPA, same overall academic achievement, and same course of study (i.e. same degree...) and were yet able to achieve all that in the more difficult, distracting environment of coeducational learning... that kind of negates that, doesn't it? So then what other ways would you spin your gender-segregated education as an advantage? You didn't have an answer before, but maybe you'll come up with one now... now that I've practically spoonfed you the objective of this question (which, really, is something no one will do for you in a real interview). Why, simply because of the virtue of Bush's pretending to give a flying crap about Christian conservative values do you tend to defend everything he does, even if certain initiatives, such as gender segregation, have every indication of having negative net effects on society based on decades of psychological research which predominantly points in that direction? Show me a study that contradicts all this other research... a study which deals with measuring human behavior and not researching the proper, responsible feedback of student performance data "for monitoring, accountability and improvement purposes"--an entirely separate issue. Until you demonstrate to me that there's clinical evidence that strongly suggests that there's a positive net effect to gender segregation in schools that cannot be achieved in coeducational schools I'm not even going to discuss this further... because you're vacillating, not answering any of my critical questions. Either post proof of your assertions, answer the questions being asked, or concede that you don't have evidence to explain why I should contribute my tax dollars to a program which has yet to be proven to work consistently better than coeducational schooling without harming society. What harm, you ask? The harm of creating a bias during the learning stage, which will become hardwired in life with individuals, even some if not all, that gender segregation is good for society when in fact all psychological studies have proven it's not conducive to progress. The larger societal harm is in creating generations of employees who will believe that their lack of accountability in having to learn how to function in dual-gender environments is ok... what other facets of living will that thinking permeate into? There is only one way to absolutely guarantee that boys and girls are receiving the same information and quality of education... by having them in the same classroom. If we segregate them, we run the risk of introducing bias elements that need not exist... because there's nothing we conclusively are gaining from this segregation. Kimball, I've said it five or six times before and I'll say it once more... If you want to send your kids to a private segregated school and you want a reimbursement for the portion of your taxes that would have contributed to educational funding... I'd think about it. The only thing that would hold me back is... I don't have any kids, and yet I pay for the educational system which is supported by society, for the benefit of society. If you get tax credits for not sending your kids to public schools, then I should get tax credits because I don't have any kids to send. Even if you and I have no kids in school, the miniscule portion of our taxes that goes to education does benefit the society we live in, for the long-term. You once suggested you didn't care whether charitable relief came from the KKK or the Nazi party... well, this is the fundamental difference between you and I. If society profits thanks to a fascist, nazi or segregationist mentality, that is an IOU I would not want on my conscience. You might have absolutely no problem with it, but I do. So go spend your dollars to support fascism, segregation and naziism... but don't come panhandling for mine. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/30/02 6:56am Subject: RE: This is your President
	I only have a moment (I need to leave for work), but I wanted to reply to a few things: However, I'm not convinced that Bush champions education in the way a President should... simply because he signs bills introduced by Congress doesn't equate to what I was talking about. I'm talking about leadership... championing the cause of education. Bush originally proposed most of the measures in the No Child Left Behind Act. Admittedly, most of the details were worked out by Congress (because that's their job), but the ideas are ones that he first expressed and called upon Congress to act upon. If he signed any of these bills, funny I didn't hear as much about "The need for stronger arts, humanities and newer technologies in the classroom" as I have about the Ten Commandments, prayer time and gender segregation... everything your average 18th-century white Christian American might want in the classroom. Granted Bush alone isn't the one championing these rather obtuse ends... but this seems to be the way politicking has gone in the last 10 years or so. Have you considered your news sources? I follow a variety of news sources and have seen them talk about many different education programs that Bush has proposed. My family gets both the Washington Post (a fairly liberal publication) and the Wasington Times (a very conservative publication). I've noticed that the more libral media has been focusing on things like the same-sex schools and Ten Commandments issues while the more conservative reports talk about his other programs. It is very informative to read articles about the exact same speech and learn that Bush emphasised two (almost radically opposed) different programs. At any rate, I like how you completely segued away from having to acknowledge your error in digging up a study which doesn't prove your point any more than it proves mine. Thank you, however that is not what I was doing. I was simply not answering portions of your comments until I had a chance to gather more data. (I wrote those things at 1am.) I do have other things to do as well (such as work until 4 today and class from 4:30 to 10). You once suggested you didn't care whether charitable relief came from the KKK or the Nazi party... well, this is the fundamental difference between you and I. If society profits thanks to a fascist, nazi or segregationist mentality, that is an IOU I would not want on my conscience. You might have absolutely no problem with it, but I do. So go spend your dollars to support fascism, segregation and naziism... but don't come panhandling for mine. That is not what I said. I said that I was opposed to discriminating against any group, on the basis of their ideals, if they meet all other criteria. I, personally, am opposed to groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazis, and I would probably not accept charity from them either. However, that doesn't mean that they should be discriminated against by the government. They have a right to equal protection (and consideration) just like anyone else. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 5/30/02 7:08am Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/30/02 7:34am (6 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	That is not what I said. I said that I was opposed to discriminating against any group, on the basis of their ideals, if they meet all other criteria. I, personally, am opposed to groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazis, and I would probably not accept charity from them either. However, that doesn't mean that they should be discriminated against by the government. They have a right to equal protection (and consideration) just like anyone else. When an organization is committed predominantly or solely to the deliberate, willful infringement of others' rights, even though they are allowed legal protection, that doesn't mean we owe them financial endorsement/sponsorship. They forfeited that right... just as a murderer forfeits the right to roam the streets freely when they are convicted. I don't get my information strictly from liberal or conservative sources. I don't read the Utne Reader, I don't read the Washington Times. I also don't believe a lot of what I read. Why am I having to answer for how I feel towards Bush? If I feel that way, I'm entitled to... but that's not the real issue, again, is it? Despite the media coverage, I've seen the results... in our schools, I've heard it from our administrators... and Bush's own state where he governed... the performance speaks for itself. If he hasn't improved considerably our education... why should he promise things he cannot deliver? Why should any politician? I don't care how many babies he kissed or hands he shook... I care about whether or not the baby kissing and handshaking (or paper signing) has actually produced any results... and what those results are, both quantitatively and qualitatively. But that's a separate discussion all together. I made several edits to my post... so you may want to re-read it, because there were other issues I addressed in there. The basic crux, Kimball, is that you have not proven to me why I should contribute my tax dollars to what appears to be nothing more than a red herring because it, in and of itself, has not proven to make a substantial dent in student performance over and above coeducational environments... In addition, the studies I cited show that single-sex schools are no less prone to gender typing and discrimination than coeducational ones. That in itself is a hugely negative social consequence which obviously isn't addressed by a shift from coed to single-sex classrooms. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/30/02 7:51am Subject: RE: This is your President
	When an organization is committed predominantly or solely to the deliberate, willful infringement of others' rights, even though they are allowed legal protection, that doesn't mean we owe them financial endorsement/sponsorship. They forfeited that right... just as a murderer forfeits the right to roam the streets freely when they are convicted. Are you saying then that such an organization should then lose the right to use public facilities for a peaceful meeting? After all, the public is then footing their bill for maintenance of the facilities. How about holding a peaceful rally in a public place (like the Mall in DC)? Where do you draw the line? As long as an organization is obeying the laws, the government cannot allow its decisions about that organization to be based on the orgaization's ideals. That is discrimination and is illegal. It violates their right to equal protection under the law as surely as forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus did. I'll type more later. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 5/31/02 9:19am Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/31/02 9:46am (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	I'm stating primarily my opinion. Whether or not the people agree with my view is for the courts to decide. I don't have anything to say about public facilities for which costs have been sunk and all organizations should have equal opportunity to use them... but for what? Should they be allowed to set up mortars on public grounds to shell and firebomb Mosques or Churches? I'm not talking about civil rights... I'm talking about government endorsement of criminal behavior. If an organization engages in hateful behavior that borders on harassment or something else criminal, the decision against them isn't because of their beliefs as an organization so much as it is against their act of trampling the rights of other individuals or groups. Typically, organizations such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis are rallied solely for the purpose of abridging other groups civil rights and freedoms. Are you saying the Neo-Nazis have a right to Jewish bank accounts and valuable possessions to fund the extermination of the Jews... even if they "promise" it's going to be used strictly for "charitable" purposes, how do we know those charities aren't somehow funneling resources back into Jewish extermination? Maybe extermination is their idea of charity... In any case, it's not a strictly black or white issue, which is why we have courts to interpret when an organization has overstepped the bounds of the law and needs to have certain rights and privileges removed as a form of punishment, but not to exceed the nature of the crime. Imagine them petitioning for the funds, "Ethnic cleansing, spiritual cleansing... what's the difference?" At any rate, what does this latest digression have to do with our discussion on single-sex education? My last statement about fascist, Nazi and segregationist mentalities has nothing to do directly with the idea of faith-based initiatives or federal funding of religious charities. It's more an aside about how you and I differ in our core philosophies. While you believe that those who abuse other people's rights should not be punished by having certain privileges (not core civil rights, like freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, mind you) taken away... much as Michael Milliken had his Series 6 and 7 licenses stripped from him (preventing him from being a broker)... I don't believe in supporting the growth of a segregationist mentality which isn't a necessary step in furthering our educational performance as individuals and a nation, in the first place. There are many other things we can, and should, focus on, before considering a solution that has no more clinical merit than a placebo. That is why I consider the single-sex classroom a red herring. It draws attention away from hundreds of more critical weak links in our educational system... which can actually improve performance if fixed, as opposed to creating a solution that has potentially devastating social consequences, both short term and long term. The difference between those weak links and this perceived problem of gender integration is that a) there's no proof that gender-segregated schools do better than non-segregated ones consistently and solely for the reason of their being gender-segregated. b) there is no evidence that negates the positive correlation psychologists have routinely found between gender segregation and the formation of gender bias/discrimination in both teachers and students. c) gender-segregation, unlike the many weak links in the educational system, doesn't encourage human accountability. What do I mean by human accountability? Simple. The many weak links in the educational system that exist now, if we address them, require that individuals be held accountable for these weak links and their solutions. However, if we encourage gender-segregation as a solution, we're essentially rationalizing the problem is nature's fault... and not ours. Unfortunately, this does us no good, because, as researchers have found, gender-segregated schools tend to have no less occurrence of gender bias or gender discrimination than coed schools. This strongly implies that the accountability of teachers to prevent from incorporating gender bias/discrimination in their teaching of students has not been encouraged any more than it is in coeducational schools... and in some cases even less. Obviously... if nature is to blame, and not the teachers and administrators, what incentive is there in the gender-segregated schools or classes to be accountable for gender bias/discrimination? -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/31/02 11:47am Subject: RE: This is your President
	Kimball: You are focusing on one single program option (in reality a clarification of the previous Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) in a bill that Bush signed. You seem to be completely ignoring the many other programs he approved along with that small clarification. The small clarification you speak of are actually amendments to the regulations--or rule changes, as the original CNN article describes--implemmenting Title IX, which is the 1972 civil rights statute designed to ensure equality for the genders in public schools. According to the article: "What the proposal would do is give the school districts more flexibility and latitude in determining what constitutes a comparable educational opportunity." Anyone who has seen the school system in action knows that with relaxed regulations, there lies the potential for inequality. The potential is what worries me, and is why I have already sent letters to my appropriate legislators condemning this act. Any Amendment that weakens the stregnth of civil rights laws is inherently wrong. Surely you must recognize this. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediSmuggler Registered: Jun '99	Date Posted: 5/31/02 12:45pm Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/31/02 12:46pm (1 edits total) Edited By: JediSmuggler
	At the same time, though, we are seeing applications of various civil rights laws causing harm to others. While not applicable in single-sex classrooms, I know of other problems with Title IX that have occurred. Many colleges are dropping aports programs because of the way the law is being interpreted and applied. See: http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez052302.asp I think some flexibility and latitude for local schools in some areas is needed. I did not hear Kimball_Kinnison say "get rid of Title IX", or "gut civil rights laws" in his posts. Quite frankly, I think a local system has more of a clue what might work best and give students the best chance than some DC bureaucrat. Potential inequality is not enough of a reason for me. Last time I checked, we operated under the principle of innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. EDIT: Any Amendment that weakens the stregnth of civil rights laws is inherently wrong. Surely you must recognize this. So is implemenation of those same civil rights in a manner to create quotas of any sort. As is the poor implementation of civil rights law. -----signature----- JediSmuggler/RogueJai collaboration: Shades of the Force http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1349946 -- Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/31/02 1:30pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	While not applicable in single-sex classrooms, I know of other problems with Title IX that have occurred. Many colleges are dropping aports programs because of the way the law is being interpreted and applied. The article you have link to is not only heavily biased, but ignores two direct quotes from the school, here: In a statement to the press, Howard's athletic director, Sondra Norrell-Thomas, said the decision was "very difficult, but necessary," claiming: "At this time, we lack the facilities to support baseball and wrestling." and here: Lawanza Spears, a spokeswoman for Howard University told NRO Wednesday night, "The decision was based solely on the lack of facilities needed to support the baseball and wrestling programs." Despite these quotes, the article goes on to outline the quota-conspiracy... they don't even identify it as "alleged". I believe that's called Yellow Journalsim. I did not hear Kimball_Kinnison say "get rid of Title IX", or "gut civil rights laws" in his posts. You are absolutely right. He did not say that, nor did I claim he did. Please do not put words in my cyber-mouth. I think some flexibility and latitude for local schools in some areas is needed. It stands to reason, given a knowledge of history and human/government behavior, that ammending laws will lead to abuse that cannot be reined in legally. The flexibility and latitude they speak of is not about whther or not to reform the AP English class. It is regarding what criteria must be met to justify "equality" between classroom/school programs. That is not something that should be flexible. So is implemenation of those same civil rights in a manner to create quotas of any sort. As is the poor implementation of civil rights law. I agree, quotas are an unneeded biproduct of Title IX; however, Nowhere in Title IX does it force quotas, suggest quotas, or otherwise rally behind the concept of quotas. That is not what is written, and that is not how it was interpretted. I think quotas benefit neither the institution nor the individual. Let's not confuse Quotas with Title IX. The former began as an ill-concieved solution to implement the latter. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 6/1/02 7:08am Subject: RE: This is your President
	Snowdog: That is why I consider the single-sex classroom a red herring. It draws attention away from hundreds of more critical weak links in our educational system... which can actually improve performance if fixed, as opposed to creating a solution that has potentially devastating social consequences, both short term and long term. Cheveyo: The small clarification you speak of are actually amendments to the regulations--or rule changes, as the original CNN article describes--implemmenting Title IX, which is the 1972 civil rights statute designed to ensure equality for the genders in public schools. Snowdog, I would say that it is not Bush turning this into a big issue, but his opposition. Bush has endorsed a wide range of plans (like those I mentioned earlier, would you like me to post more?), but for some reason a lot of people seem to ignore those and focus only on the single-sex education issue, which is, in fact, a non-issue. Cheveyo and Snowdog: All that the small clarification that I mentioned does is codify some of the interpretations of Title IX made by the courts into law. This does provide additional flexibility because it makes it harder for school systems to be sued for things that were already legal. It is a common practice to make these clarifications to law after a large number of court cases have upheld an interpretation. Same-sex public schools were legal before Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, and that Act confirms that they are still legal. Snowdog: I'm not talking about civil rights... I'm talking about government endorsement of criminal behavior. If an organization engages in hateful behavior that borders on harassment or something else criminal, the decision against them isn't because of their beliefs as an organization so much as it is against their act of trampling the rights of other individuals or groups. Typically, organizations such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis are rallied solely for the purpose of abridging other groups civil rights and freedoms. It is not government endorsement of criminal behavior. I specifically stated that they have to obey the same laws as everyone else. As an example, in April 1977, a group of Neo-Nazis wanted to hold a march through the town of Skokie, IL (which was about 60% Jewish). After they were denied a permit to hold a peaceful assembly, they fought the case into the Illinois Supreme Court. There it was determined that as long as they obeyed the law they could not be discriminated against. (As a side note, they were restricted from using the swastika during their march.) If they had decided to march through the town in military uniforms and carrying guns, they would have been denied completely (as would almost anyone else except the US military). However, because they met the same standards as anyone else, they could not be denied equal protection under the law because of their political beliefs, however objectionable they might me. Cheveyo: I agree, quotas are an unneeded biproduct of Title IX; however, Nowhere in Title IX does it force quotas, suggest quotas, or otherwise rally behind the concept of quotas. That is not what is written, and that is not how it was interpretted. I think quotas benefit neither the institution nor the individual. Let's not confuse Quotas with Title IX. The former began as an ill-concieved solution to implement the latter. Unfortunately, Title IX has been interpreted to set quotas based on gender. For example, one of the most common interpretations (to which JediSmuggler referred) is for sports, stating that while you do not have to make the same sports available to both genders, you have to spend the same amount of money on sports for each. This is a problem form many schools where they use their footbal program (which gets quite expensive) as a source of revenue and then have to spend an equal amount on other sports that don't bring in very much (if any) money for the school. Sorry I'm not going to be around too much. We have a big project to finish at work and my cousin is getting married next week. I might be able to post a little, but not much. I'll see you all when I can. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »