Featured Post



Monday, May 28, 2012


Years ago I wrote about the Scottsboro cases of the 1930s in which two white women accused nine young Black men of rape.  They lied.  But prejudice was strong in that era, and the youths were convicted, and at first, eight sentenced to death.  Communists came to the rescue, providing both a top-notch legal defense inside the courtroom, and international agitation outside.  It was the first time since the American Civil War that American racism was put on trial throughout much of the world.
Liberals and Communists and the literary crowds applauded the play on Broadway, "They Shall Not Die," the poems and plays on the case by Langston Hughes, and the poems describing the prejudice in The Daily Worker.
With the Cold War, the literature on the issue had to change.  In the novel by Don Mankiewicz, and subsequent film starring Glenn Ford, "Trial," an Hispanic in California, rather than Blacks in Alabama, is the center of the struggle.  But in this Cold-War version, the boy is still innocent, but the Communists leading his defense are really out to have him convicted and execute so he will be a martyr to the red cause.
Another Cold War novel and film on the subject is Harper Lee’s "To Kill a Mockingbird,” which starred Gregory Peck.  In this version, the Black man is innocent, but there are not Communists to intervene.  The good liberal attorney is able to expose much of the local racial prejudice, but not enough to sway the jury.
In the 1960s a newer, more militant feminism emerged.  One Leftist, who had once sat in lectures by Herbert Aptheker, the Communist historian, wrote her womanifesto in the 1970s, Against Our Will.  In it, Susan Brownmiller asserts that the Left had taken the wrong tact on the Scottsboro case.  They should have considered it more from the women’s point of view.  The attitude that women do not make false charges was to infect some of the later writing on the Scottsboro case, and I had letters in major academic journals complaining that trendy historians had caved to the feminists.  Moreover, had the feminist-inspired “rape shield” laws been in effect in Alabama in the 1930s, the defense lawyers would never have been able to expose the lies of the gals.  (I say the boys were innocent because I interviewed one of the judges who presided at one of the trials.  He had spoken in private to a doctor who examined the young women.  They were giggling and laughing.  He told them directly, “Those boys didn’t rape you, did they?”  And they laughed again.  The judge urged him to tell this under oath on the witness stand.  The doctor said he would lie, for to tell the true with such intense emotions in the area, he would lose his practice.  The judge eventually overruled the jury’s guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.  That judge was not re-elected.)
By the 1980s false charges of rape could become page-1 stories for nearly a year.  The Tawana Brawley case of alleging rape by a white policeman should have been exposed as fraud rather quickly.  But since she was a young Black woman, and Rev. Al Sharpton and other “civil rights” activists joined her cause, the daily news lesson was simple – the evil white man of power who rapes the poor, defenseless, Black girls.  (Sorry, women.  Feminist language did away with ladies and almost eliminated girls.  Woman became the word.)
The trend was unmistakable.  By the time of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the Left went all out to destroy his reputation.  On National Public Radio, far-Leftist “reporter” Nina Totenberg assured her listeners that “women do not make up stories,” so clearly Anita Hill was telling the truth about Thomas harassing her.  Happily, most of the Senate ignored the authority of Ms. Totenberg, and Thomas still sits on the United States Supreme Court.
Yet then notion that the women are always right and truthful in making charges, and the men, especially white men, but also Black men, are fiends determined to rape, is almost a tenet of today’s feminism.  Even the definition of rape was broadened so it might not have been rape at all a few decades ago.  Today, wives can be raped by their husbands.  “Date rape” can be nothing more than consensual intercourse at night, but anger roused when he fails to call her the following day.  So her Women’s Studies counselor urges her to file a rape charge.  The entire Zeitgeist makes it much easier for her to charge him with rape.  Even if she goes to his hotel room at 2am – as did the gal who then charged prize fighter Mike Tyson with rape.  That charge led him into prison and a changed life.  For once I agreed with Rev. Farrakhan who stood up for Tyson and against the gal who was happily fondled on film by the prizefighter earlier that day by him – and then she went to his room at 2 am.  Rape?  And his reputation was then destroyed.
In the 21st century the media and academia worked to convict Duke U. lacrosse players, accused of rape by a stripper.  Immediately the academedia complex went to work to convict the middle-class white men.  The university leaders condemned the racism on campus.  Even the sport season was cancelled, as lacrosse suddenly had a seedy reputation.  TV news telecast rich, playboy, whites, abusing a poor, struggling Black woman.  Then the case collapsed.  Were there any apologies for ruining the reputation of the players?  And when the same woman was involved in a murder charge, how much media play did that get? 
And now the case of high school football player Brian Banks.  He is suddenly charged with rape and kidnapping by a gal with whom he had consensual sex.  What is he to do?  In my era, they would have looked at the reputations of both the boy and girl (sorry, man and woman).  But in the new feminist era, “women do not make up stories.”  Though he tells his attorney, he is innocent, the lawyer understands that that may mean little in the world of Totenberg’s mantra.  So the lawyer gets him to plea bargain so he will not rot in jail for 41 years.  Banks finally gets out, his accuser Wanetta Gibson, contacts him and wants to forget the whole affair.  He is naturally suspicious of meeting her, and records the encounter.  She confesses, there was no rape; there was not kidnapping.  It was recorded.  A lawyer now wants Banks declared innocent and his record cleared.
However, Ms. Gibson will not repeat her confession!  Why?  Her mother sued the school district as a result of the “rape and kidnapping,” and the family made some $1,500,000.00 because of the lie.  She was paid over a million dollars to lie.  That is what the new feminism is all about.  Lies, putting men in their place (prison), getting feminist judges in divorces to give the children to the wives, along with exorbitant child support, and many of the belongings.  It is only in such an atmosphere that a lying teen could get over a million dollars and ruin so many chances for the boy with whom she had consensual sex.
It is time to abolish feminist law.  It is as unjust as sharia law.  Women, like men, can lie, cheat, even kill.  When charges are made, both accuser and accused must be questioned without “shields,” and probes made as to which is telling the truth.  In the era of equality, one should be treated equally.  Both may tell the truth, and both may lie.
I hope the Long Beach school district immediately files suit against the Gibson family to recover tax-payers money that simply encouraged a lying feminist.  In future, judges should ponder before granting such large sums.
Rape is a serious charge.  But because it is “serious,” that does not make it true.  Women can lie just as men do.  The charge should be investigated before there are verdicts of guilty and huge payouts.
Simply, feminist law is unjust law.  It must be repealed. 

Sunday, May 27, 2012


Onetime top football prospect exonerated after rape accuser recants
Published May 24, 2012
Associated Press
LONG BEACH, Calif. –  The kidnap-rape conviction of a once-promising prep football star was dismissed Thursday following a recantation by his accuser.
Brian Banks collapsed in sobs on the counsel table during a court hearing where a prosecutor quickly conceded the decade-old case and moved for the dismissal.
In the summer of 2002, Banks' future looked bright: He was a 17-year-old high school football star being heavily recruited by a number of colleges. But in a single day that changed with the accusations of kidnapping and rape by a female student.
He maintained there was no rape and their sexual contact was consensual, but his lawyer urged him to plead no contest rather than risk a sentence of 41 years to life in prison if convicted. He followed the advice and went to prison for six years, shattering his dreams of gridiron glory.
Lawyers for the California Innocence Project were prepared Thursday to argue he should be exonerated.
In a strange turn of events, the woman who accused him a decade ago friended him on Facebook when he got out of prison. Wanetta Gibson explained she wanted to "let bygones be bygones."
According to documents in the case, she met with Banks and said she had lied; there had been was no kidnap and no rape and she offered to help him clear his record.
But she subsequently refused to repeat the story to prosecutors because she feared she would have to return a $1.5 million payment from a civil suit brought by her mother against Long Beach schools.
She was quoted as telling Banks: "I will go through with helping you but it's like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don't want to have to pay it back."
Justin Brooks, a lawyer who heads the innocence project, said that Banks has remained on probation, under electronic monitoring, has had to register as a sex offender and has had trouble getting a job.
He said Banks continues to train for what he hopes will be a future chance at a football career.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

US Fed Dept of Education - $ to End Race Gap

Because I had already used my one-call a week to Wisconsin Public Radio, I emailed this comment to Kathleen Dunn and her guest discussing the Obama Administration's announcement of millions of dollars to various school districts to close the racial gap.  The Administration did this without Congressional approval, part of the dictatorial approach of Obama and the Democrats.  Here I attack.  My comment was not read on the radio program.

Kathleen Dunn, Wisconsin Public Radio:  
   The objective of the Fed. Dept of Education and Obama's Race to the Top is to reduce and end the racial gap in testing.  Today's announcement about a new program by the Feds. is another example of this - with millions more appropriated to close the racial gap.  Thus, if white students as a group do as poorly as Black students, the Feds can cheer and call their program a success.  Bush's No Left Behind program was just as foolish.
   Here is one more reason to abolish the Federal Dept. of Education.  "Race to the top"?  Or waste at the top, bottom, and all over?
   Schools should ignore race gaps and teach to improve the education of all students.-------Hugh Murray

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

PBS - The West and the Rest, or the West in Decline

Niall Ferguson presented an interesting program on PBS TV – The West and the Rest,  22 May 2012, which asked the question of how the West came to dominate the globe during the past few centuries.  Ferguson wonders if that dominance will continue.  He mentions various topics that he thinks led to Western dominance.  However, by discussing the Turks in one topic area, and the topic of competition, more with the Chinese, and never mentioning the taboo topic of affirmative action in the US, Ferguson plays it safe.  He had better not offend the Left that makes the decisions about programming on PBS.  I went to the PBS web site and posted the following comment.  One wonders if my comment will remain or be removed.-------Hugh Murray
Ferguson also stresses the importance of competition later in the program, when he notes that when the Ottoman Turks were ascending, they used a merit system for the civil service. Later, the service was opened to Turks, merit abandoned, corruption flourished, and the empire declined. The US once had merit as the basis for advancement in its civil service and in industry. The merit system, however, was abandoned as affirmative action preferences were awarded to pet groups, while better qualified candidates experienced the negative action of being white males. Merit has been abandoned in the US for 50 years. Instead of hiring the best, one is hired because they are this minority or that. No wonder America is in decline. No wonder other nations may rise to dominate the 21st century.
A reply:
The comments of “Hugh” provide a glowing example of how Ferguson’s hackery and BS ahistory appeal to racists in bThe comments of “Hugh” provide a glowing example of how Ferguson’s hackery and BS ahistory appeal to racists in both the US and Europe. The US is failing because of affirmative action….Wait! didn’t Ferguson claim that segregation had to do with the rise of US prosperity? He did…but slavery had EVERYTHING to do with it.
·         Hughon May 23, 2012 at 2:16 am said:
If slavery had everything to do with it, why did not the other slave areas prosper? North Africans raided Italy, France, Spain, even on occasion up to Iceland, taking slaves. The sub-Saharan Africans sold to the New World had been slaves in the Old. It is America that sent ships to Tripoli to end the Arab piracy and taking slaves of Western seamen.
Merit was once part of the American system. The Left elite used affirmative action to destroy it. The Left elite knows it will cause the destruction of America and the West; but the Left elite hates the West, and is overjoyed to see our demise. Recall the chant at Stanford, “Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho! Western Civ. has got to go.”oth the US and Europe. The US is failing because of affirmative action….Wait! didn’t Ferguson claim that segregation had to do with the rise of US prosperity? He did…but slavery had EVERYTHING to do with it.

Thursday, May 17, 2012


                                                             by Hugh Murray
            The excellent article by Jared Taylor, “School Suspensions: More Official Baloney,” exposes how the government and media collaborate to promote the lie that anti-Black racism is wide-spread and corrective measures must be taken.  The logic is clear in the first paragraph: Education Secretary Duncan laments that minority students face much harsher discipline than non-minorities despite the fact that “researches [at the National Education Policy Center] have found no evidence that students of color engage in more misbehavior than White students.”  Taylor draws the final line of the syllogism: this “leaves discrimination as the only culprit.”
            Taylor’s article uses statistics, including those from the Department of Justice, to prove that students of color [Blacks and Hispanics] do in fact engage in more misbehavior than White students, and therefore the notion promoted by the educrats that minorities receive harsh punishment is not true.  Because they engage in far more unruly and violent behavior than their white and Asian fellow students, Blacks and Hispanics are suspended more often and deservedly so.
            My purpose here is not to summarize Taylor’s research.  I merely note that his article is conservative in scope, limited to the distortions of the academedia complex seeking to establish the false notion that Blacks and Hispanics are victims of discrimination in school suspensions.  My objective is to demonstrate how using those same methods and a false premise, America has enacted “reforms” that have been destructive to American society.
            The method of distortion is simple – take the general population of schools, break it down into percentages of Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, and possibly others.  Then total the number of school suspensions, expulsions, etc.  Break those down into groups also.  Because the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics suspended is greater than the percentage of whites disciplined, the reason must be racial discrimination.
            The same method is used to contend that the death penalty is discriminatory; that in the 1980s and 90s the banking industry discriminated in not providing sufficient loans to poor minority borrowers seeking to purchase a home; to the gap in hiring police and fire fighters, or admitting students to university, law school, medical school, etc.  Everywhere, when one uses the yardstick of proportionalism, one uncovers discrimination.
            It is time to assert – they are using the wrong yardstick.
            When the US Congress was debating passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA), much of the debate centered on proportional hiring and firing, racial balance and quotas, and the possibility of providing preferences for minorities.  Southern opponents of the legislation warned that passage would result in quotas and anti-white discrimination.  Nonsense, replied the liberals.  Liberals stressed that not only did the proposed law not require hiring, firing, or promoting to achieve racial balance, it expressly forbid such practices.  The law required hiring the best qualified candidate.  This was the point of the law.  This was to be the codification of Martin Luther King’s speech during the 1963 March on Washington: the candidates would be judged by their character, not by the color of their skin.  This is why the commission created to enforce the law was called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  There were to be no racial preferences, deferences, or discrimination in hiring and firing.  Liberal Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the majority floor leader for the bill, asserted that if a Negro were hired instead of a better qualified white, the Minnesota would eat his hat.  The unstated assumption was that all races were equally talented in all fields.  In future, more Negroes would be hired because in the past they had been denied equal opportunity.  With the new Civil Rights Act, and the EEOC to enforce it, Blacks would be given equal opportunity for all jobs, and they would quickly rise to the level of all other groups.
            I believe that most of those who voted for the CRA sincerely believed that equal opportunity in hiring, etc., would result in the hiring of more Blacks [Hispanics were a small minority in 1964 and were not a part of the debate].  Blacks, who in some cases had not been allowed to apply for positions before passage of the law, could now apply themselves and apply for the jobs.  Being like everyone else, they would get some of the jobs.  Everyone who had been to university – a small but growing minority – had learned that all races were essentially equal in every respect, in all talents and in intelligence.  Blacks were, as a prominent historian once phrased it, “white people with black skins.”  A few decades later, this notion was expanded to the theory that there were no races; race was merely a social construct.
            With passage of the CRA of 1964, the overt discrimination that prevented Blacks from sitting at a lunch counter, or enrolling in a neighborhood public school, would crumble.  Legal segregation would evaporate as the 60s wore on.  Blacks could now eat a burger at Woolworth’s, apply for a post as cashier, as an airline pilot, as a policeman, maybe in time, as a president.  Because all races were equal, in time one could expect to see a racially balanced work-force in all areas of life.  And the government itself was the guarantor of fairness in hiring through the EEOC.
            Things did not go as anticipated – or as hoped.  Many Blacks were not qualified for the posts that were opening up to them.  Many in the South had attended inferior, segregated schools.  [I do not imply that all segregated schools were inferior, but most certainly were.  I attended my neighborhood K-8 elementary school, Judah Benjamin, and we wrote with chalk on the blackboard.  When the chalk dwindled to stubs, we saved them in a wooden box to be sent to the Black school.  The neighborhood Black school – the neighborhood was integrated – was crowded and had morning and afternoon shifts for students.  By the time I was in 8th grade, white students from another part of the city were being bused in to fill the empty desks in my school.]  Of course, attitudes toward schooling were different then.  My mother was fairly well educated having graduated from 8th grade, while my dad had finished schooling with 3rd grade.  In the South education was prized less among whites and Blacks.  Of course, in the North, many Blacks attended the same schools as whites and received the same education.
            During debate on the CRA a case arose in the North that was to affect the wording of the law.   In the fall of 1963 a Black, high-school dropout sought a job at Motorola.  Like all applicants, he was given a general ability test. He failed it.  He then complained to the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission alleging he was not hired because of his race.  The Illinois state commission appointed a Black to hear the case, and in January 1964 that examiner ruled that the test was unfair to culturally deprived groups and issued a cease and desist order.  Motorola was ordered to stop testing to hire the best qualified applicants.  To many Americans, requiring companies to hire people who could not pass basic tests seemed unfair – it was a threat both to merit hiring and an efficient work force.  Because of this threat, the proposed civil rights legislation was amended in Congress, as the Clark-Case memorandum explained: “There is nothing in Title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups.” (Hugh Graham, The Civil Rights Era, p. 151)  Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, Republican leader also had the legislation amended so that only intentional discrimination was barred.
            The general presumption was that all races are equal in all talents.  If this were true, why then were Blacks as a group unable to compete with whites?  One obvious explanation was the inferior education Blacks had received in the past.  There were demands to grant Blacks some special preferences to make up for that discrimination which they had endured in the past.  How would this be determined?  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began to use the proportional model to determine what percentage of a workforce Blacks should have, and apply racial quotas to guaranty that Blacks were hired or promoted to reach that percentage.  Thus, if Blacks constituted 10% of the population of a given area, they should be 10% of the police force, fire department, everything.  And no or few whites should be hired until the Black proportion reached the ideal goal with a timetable for achieving it (all this was a euphemism for quotas).  Quotas had been outlawed in the CRA, but the EEOC, the commission created to enforce the law, implemented policies meant to subvert the CRA.  The EEOC instituted rules whose purpose was to deny equal opportunity to whites, and thereby achieve the percentage of Blacks that the proportional model required.  Past discrimination against Blacks would be the rationale for imposing the affirmative action preferences for Blacks, which amounted to negative action discrimination against whites.
            There was another issue that swelled to the surface in the late 1960s.  This can best be illustrated by two film of that era: Carmen Jones and Black Orpheus.  In Jones, Harry Belafonte and Dorothy Dandridge sang a modern Carmen.  It is a European story in modern dress and Blackface.  Negroes are simply white people with dark skins.  On the contrary, Black Orpheus, (the French-Brazilian film, and the first to win the Academy Award in the new foreign film category) takes an ancient Greek myth and places it during the Carnival in Rio.  The whole film seems as far from Greece as is Brazil; as far from Western culture as Santeria is from Roman Catholicism.  In the film, the culture is exciting, beautiful, bizarre – but alien.  Do Blacks have a distinct culture?  Is the culture the result of oppression?  Or the outgrowth of a different clime and times?  Or what?
            If Blacks in America are different from whites, to what extent should whites make accommodations for those differences?  Soon there were law cases that Black men should not be required to shave for certain jobs because the skin of Blacks was more sensitive to razors.  Because the hair of Blacks was different, they should be permitted to wear it longer, or in different styles from others.  And this was but the tip of the iceberg.  For years New York City schools had rejected white applicants for teaching posts who did not speak standard English, but the policy had long made exceptions for Blacks who spoke with Black accents – even though these sometimes included grammatically incorrect usage by standard rules.  And if exceptions were made for Black teachers, what about Black students?  Often Blacks engaged in more horse play, shouted more, used foul language.  Whites would be expelled for such misbehavior.  But often Blacks were not punished and continued with their non-standard English and different manners.  Should they have been punished like whites?
            In the 1980s there was a prominent Black female educator, Adelaide Sanford, who contended that Blacks were naturally more attuned to approximation than precision.  Therefore, math exams must not grade Blacks as others, even if the Blacks fail to deduce the exact answer.  So long as they were approximately near, that was good enough.  (One wonders if architects and engineers would be held responsible if their structures collapsed because their approximations failed to stabilize a bridge or building?)  Sanford’s reforms of the mathematics and other curricula were never implemented, as far as I know.  At least not yet.  (I am mistaken.  Though I see no credit given to Sanford, schools did see a way to close the race gap in math by teaching “fuzzy” math, where accuracy is not so important.  See the link  http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/27/nyregion/the-new-flexible-math-meets-parental-rebel

In 1986 Sanford was appointed to the New York State Board of Regents, helped compose a controversial handbook, and was nominated by and supported by many to become Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools in 1987.  She was not chosen.
            Far more significant was the assault on testing led by Eleanor Holmes Norton of the EEOC during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.  Aptitude testing had developed over the early decades of the 20th century so that by WWII, it was effective in determining the types of jobs individuals would best be fit for.  However, on these tests, and of course on IQ exams, Blacks as a group did poorly.  The Left concluded, the culprit must be the exams.  Kill the messenger!  So Norton used her post to try to abolish the tests, discredit them, and denounce them as racist.  What other reason could there be for Blacks doing poorly on these exams?
            Through use of the EEOC, court cases, and exorbitant fines, Norton generally succeeded in preventing use of most exams for jobs.  Instead of helping to direct the individual to the best job fit for which he was equipped, there was more randomness, more of the better qualified filling lower positions, and more of the under qualified moving up (if they were Black, or later Hispanic).  Norton’s objective was to lower qualifications for most jobs so anyone could be considered “basically qualified,” and then the only way for the employer to choose among the mass of “basically qualified” candidates was to hire by racial, ethnic, or gender quotas.  Of course, that was the aim of the Left and EEOC.  Deny jobs to the best qualified and hire by quota.
            Admittedly, there has long been an antagonism in public schools to intelligent students by the educrats.  I attended a segregated, white high school in New Orleans.  New Orleans, then still considered the largest city in the South – as it had been since the 1840s – was more populous that Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and Memphis.  It was also about 50% white and 50% Black.  While the overwhelming majority of whites were Roman Catholic, the overwhelming majority of Blacks were Protestants.  About a third of all students attended Catholic schools, which like the public ones, were segregated by race.  Another difference between the high schools – Catholic schools were still segregated by sex.  My class year was the first in New Orleans to attend co-educational public schools from K to 12 (For younger readers, co-ed schools are those open to boys and girls.  Co-ed is a word seldom used today to refer to the kind of school that is now ubiquitous.  Today, when you say school, you assume that both male and female students comprise its population.)
            One of my high-school history teachers was speaking informally to the class about the contrast between Easton, where I attended, and Jesuits, our main, football rival in the city.  The teacher declared, “At Jesuits, the students who have grades from 90 to 100 attend one class; those with 80 to 89, another; and those 70 to 79, yet another.”  Someone asked, “What about those who receive less than a 70?”  “They come to Easton,” the public school teacher responded.  We all laughed, but there was truth in his observation.
            This is when I first encountered the concept of “streaming” – having separate classes for those students who are weak, average, and excellent.  I do not think that streaming occurred officially at Easton, but by my second year, as a junior, I had heard who the hard and easy teachers were.  I sought the rough ones.  As many of their students sought to transfer out from those teachers, it was not difficult for me to transfer into the classes of the hard-graders.  In that sense, Easton had self-service streaming.  Though known as a football school, I was on Easton’s state champion debating squad.  Being a debater probably did not enhance my popularity, but it didn’t hurt it.  I was a nerd at a football school.  One New Orleanian of that era who attended Easton proved it was not necessary to play on the football team to gain fame.  No, we generally do not remember Lee Oswald for football.
            I realized much later that streaming inside a class may have occurred when I was in 1st of 2nd grade.  At the time, I was unaware.  But in that class as we learned how to read, we were divided into three groups, chicks, bunnies, and ducks.  I do not remember to which I was assigned, but I do recall being surprised after speaking to a girl in another group, and hers was behind ours in the reading book.
            I think it was under Eleanor Norton and the EEOC that President Carter’s Administra-tion began a war against streaming.  Put simply, the good students were usually white, and the weak students, Black.  Thus, in an integrated school, with streaming of classes, the class rooms were often segregated by race.  In effect, when the Federal Government demanded the end of streaming, it was not only requiring that the class room be racially integrated, but that it be integrated by ability – the very bright, the average, and the very dull.  Is this really good, educational policy?
            By the 1990s the Government was pushing Outcome Based Education (OBE) in public schools.  Since Blacks were not performing well, the educrats decided the reason might be that the teacher was spending too much time with the average students, and moving on to the next lesson when most students had understood that particular lesson.  The result, however, was the slow students could not keep up, falling ever further behind.  So now, under OBE, it was wrong to teach to the smart or even the average student.  In reality – that was “racist.”  To prevent such, the teacher was not supposed to begin Chapter 2, until all students, even the very slowest, had absorbed Chapter 1.  So, bore the smart and average student!   So what?  They are probably white anyway.  The teacher must go slowly through the text book for the slow (often minority) students.  In time, teachers would use only dumbed-down text books aimed at the slow students.  Whites could (and did) leave such public school systems for the suburbs or private education.
            While these “reforms” were being introduced by the Feds and the educrats, some parents were using the courts to stir changes of their own.  The Federal Government had passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, and now some parents demanded the end of schools especially meant for the blind, the deaf, or others severely disabled.  They demanded that their handicapped children me main-streamed.  Not all parents agreed with these demands for integration.  They believed their children had better chances in life if they could learn among those with similar afflictions.  But in some schools, the severely handicapped were indeed placed in regular classes.  With OBE, the teacher is not supposed to open Chapter 2 until all understand Chapter 1.  Suppose some, or even one, in the class is incapable of such understanding?  Do you punish the teacher?  Or the other students?  And if the weakest student never understands year after year?  It is then theoretically possible then in 12th grade for the teacher to be opening Chapter 1 of the first grade book, hoping this time, all will understand the lesson.  The policies are absurd.  Are schools meant to educate?
            Then President George W. Bush proposed the No Child Left Behind Act.  Part of the disputes revolved round objective testing of students and teaching for the tests.  But far more insidious was the determination to narrow the gap between Black, Hispanic, (thanks to liberal’s open-door immigration policy and massive illegal immigration, Hispanics now outnumber Blacks in the US) and white students on objective tests.  Because schools whose students did poorly on these tests might be punished, and even closed, there was great incentive to cheat.  Teachers not only cheated, changing the answers given by their students, but sometimes the teachers were ordered to do so by their principals and school administrators.  One prize-winning teacher-administrator in Atlanta was revealed to be part of the cheating process.  Her students had scored high, and her schools were promoted as examples to the nation.  Then, scandal.
            Worse, was the emphasis on narrowing the racial gap on objective tests.  If whites had done better, that would not be deemed success under the program.  The objective was to narrow the gap.  Thus, if white scores were to drop drastically to equal the low scores of Blacks and Hispanics, the Department of Education (under a liberal Republican) might judge that to be a success!  Obama’s Race to the Top is much the same, but with less interest in closing schools that perform poorly.
            If these reforms were not bad enough, often the reality in public schools is worse.  I remember as a student in New Orleans when the film “Blackboard Jungle” was shown.  Many segregationists warned that that would be the result of integrated schools in the South.  It was a sobering film, and though the young, Black actor Sidney Poitier turns out to be a good guy in the movie, the vision of schools so ill-disciplined and out-of-control in liberal, integrated New York was an ominous forecast.  Soon, however, I would dismiss such rears by reading “The Southern Patriot,” the newsletter of the Southern Conference Education Fund (SCEF, an offshoot of the Southern Conference on Human Welfare. SCHW).  The SCHW had openly endorsed Progressive Henry Wallace in the 1948 election campaign, and President Truman’s Attorney General placed SCHW on his list of subversive organizations as a Communist front.  The Wallace campaign in the South in 1948 was in many ways a precursor to the civil rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s.  But between 1948 and the Montgomery bus boycott of the mid-50s, many integrationist organizations in the South collapsed after being labeled as Communist dominated.)  The SCEF newsletter contained reports on the integrated schools of Washington, DC, stressing how well such schools were performing.  Clearly, that is not the case in the long run, and I must now question if these reports of the 1950s and early 60s were accurate, or little more than wishful thinking, or liberal or communist propaganda.
            I do not seek to idealize the public schools I attended in the 1950s.  There was bullying, occasional fights, some students were mean, some kind.  And for the Blacks, their schools were generally unequal.  Yet, it is inconceivable that we would have had to walk through metal detectors to enter the building.  I am now too lazy to research the crime statistic in public school of the 1950s and compare them with the statistics of today.  In both eras, the statistics lie – because in both eras educrats are more worried about the image of their schools than reporting honestly about fights, threats, stabbings, shootings, rapes, murders, occurring on school premises.  But everyone old enough to compare is aware that the schools generally are far more dangerous today than in 1955.  Why?
            The Obama campaign to prove that Blacks are suspended and expelled more than whites is not the first attempt by the Left to destroy standards of conduct in schools as they previously destroyed academic standards.  I think it was in Cincinnati in the 1990s that schools adopted a policy (either voluntarily or through court-order) of suspending students propor-tionately by race.  Realistically, what can be the result?
            Should teachers impose a harsher discipline on white students, so their proportion of suspension will rise to the level of the Blacks?  Suspend a white for chewing gum, perhaps?  Or more likely, fail to suspend a Black when his action clearly deserves it?  For to suspend him will raise the percentage of Blacks suspended, and the government may then accuse the teacher and the school of the gravest crime in today’s America, “racism.”  So, ignore the Black when he shouts an insult to another student; ignore him when he insults a teacher; when he hits a fellow student; when he slugs a teacher; when he rapes or commits a major crime?  Better to ignore all this than be accused of racism.
            As the school ignores increasingly disruptive, uncivil, and even criminal behavior by some Blacks, what are the ramifications?  Other Blacks observe what some can get away with, and though their first impulse may have been to obey the rules, they find it more fun to join the delinquent crowd – after all, they will not be punished for it.  Some good Black student will be intimidated and beaten.  They will have to stop getting good grades, stop studying, stop paying attention in class – because that is “acting white” – a crime almost as horrible as “racism.”  They are punished for being good students, and the Black students who impose these punishment, sometimes harsh, are not punished by the school.
            And what happens to the whites in such an atmosphere?  Some will be terrorized like the good Black students.  But it will be worse.  The curriculum has undoubtedly been altered to stress the many accomplishments of Blacks, Hispanics, women, and everyone except white men.  The latter are stigmatized as exploiters, oppressors, slave owners, aggressors, war-mongers.  And they are not that smart.  When waiting to vote in the presidential election of 2008 in a long line inside a public school, I noticed the pictures on the wall and the notice on the bulletin board.  There were numerous photos of rap artists with captions praising them.  There was the notice about the book Stolen Legacy, about how the ancient Greeks learned everything from the Egyptians, stole their knowledge, and then used it against the creative people of Africa.  This is a variation of the “blue-eyed devils,” Black Muslim school of history.  Whites invent nothing except how to mistreat others.  So rap is a natural outlet for Blacks to respond to such injustice.  If whites dispute some of this, Black bullies will verbally assault and insult them as racists – the white ofays and white bitches and all the other foul words in the bully vocabulary.  If that does not settle it, Blacks may use violence.  Whites, who can afford it, flee the school system their parents’ taxes support.  Therefore many public schools in the city become Blacker, more violent, less academic, and sprinkled with metal detectors and extra police or security guards.
            And then the Leftists and Black Nationalists, whose policies promoted this academic disaster, shout before the TV cameras, “Why is it whites don’t come to our schools?”  It is the policies of the Left that have made them “their schools,” a culmination of Black culture, Black discipline, Black academia, and Black crime.  A place where whites and others are quite unwelcome.  A true blackboard jungle.
            What happens at university?  The few good Black students who, despite “acting white,” survived the hatred of the pampered Black bullies in school can probably do well on SATs and other entrance exams.  However, universities must not appear to be “racist.”  So they use affirmative action scams to reach their illegal quota of diversity students.  Therefore, some of the same bullies who terrorized others in school, who did poorly on the Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT), etc., may also be admitted to the same university.  And they will be admitted, and even granted scholarships, above poor white students who perform much better on exams.  Equal opportunity?
            The campus will subsidize the Black Students Union and other non-white ethnic organizations.  There Black students will learn that the reason they are receiving low grades in math and science courses is the racism of the professors.  They are encouraged to enroll instead in Black Studies and other “relevant” programs.  In these, the ethnic professor listens acutely to their stories of “oppression.”  In some courses, they need not speak, or even compose papers in white English.  They may use Ebonics instead.  (In May 2012 a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education was fired when she suggested that these ethnic studies programs be abolished, and cited some dissertation titles in the field as proof of their political nature.  Some 6,500 people emailed the Chronicle demanding her dismissal.  Many of these were signed by professors.  That is how debate is conducted in the politically correct atmosphere of today’s university.)  And even if they were not enrolled in such programs, it would be interesting to read some of the papers written by President Obama and his wife when they were students.  Unfortunately, the President who promised to make his administration the most transparent, refuses to make available his university writings, or even his grades – presumably because his papers contain embarrassing material.
            There are many consequences of affirmative action, racial balance, and giving preference to lesser and unqualified minorities.  Many Blacks at university are simply in over their heads.  So now, they fail, leave the university after a year or two, and blame the racism of the professors, the campus, the nation, etc.  To the good students, White, Asian, Hispanic, even Black, there is reinforcement of the stereotype that the Black is the intellectual inferior of others.  Of course, those who are most damaged by affirmative action are the whites who were qualified for university but who were denied scholarships, denied admission, denied equal opportunity simply because they were white.
            The university atmosphere of affirmative action also permeates the liberal arts curriculum and research.  What happens to a psychology professor who proposes to study the possibly different intellectual capabilities of the different races?  Much of the research on race is distorted.  Some questions dare not be raised – such as meaningful racial differences.  If that question cannot be discussed, then all discussion of race is circumscribed, distorted, so that much of the writing in sociology over the last 60 years might better be called “excusiology.”  History texts must now emphasize minorities and women, even though their influence on history may not be comparable to that of white men, at least in the past few centuries.  Indeed, by 1900 almost the entire globe was ruled by white men.  To the politically correct university of today, this is a matter of embarrassment.  They would prefer to have the picture of the signers of the Declaration of Independence repainted, showing half the signers to be women, 14% Blacks, etc.  In the education departments, the requirements become ever more political, performing voluntary work for “social justice,” promoting diversity, etc.  Their objective is to prevent a conservative from being licensed to teach (like, fire the blogger!).  A decade ago a friend had his young son in a public school in New York.  When asked about the days in school, the boy told the dad he was never called on in class, because the teacher did not call on boys.  The feminist ideology she probably absorbed in Women’s Studies spilled over into her teaching.  She would not let oppressive males speak in her public school class room.  My friend soon withdrew his son to a private school.  Other parents did the same.
            Affirmative action, and its related political correctness, have had a devastating effect upon education in the US.  One reason political correctness went hand-in-hand with affirmative action was this: if lesser qualified students were admitted to university, and someone noticed who was the bottom of the class, and commented that Blacks were not very smart, that was seen as an attack on Blacks, and also on the policy of the university administration and on that of the government.  Such speech had to be suppressed.  Free speech was abandoned, so universities could impose hate speech codes, preventing use of the “N” word, or the “W” word (wetback) or the “Q” word (queer) or the … the word list grew.  To impose a policy that most witnessed to be untrue and unfair, the threat of expulsion was deemed necessary.  In the clouding Orwellian world of the university, equal opportunity means preferences; all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
            In the 1950s and 60s, with the growth of the CR, many thought the result of CR would be a decrease in crime.  Sociologists taught us the root cause of crime was poverty.  End poverty, and crime will disappear.  But while CR protest was generally non-violent in the South, Blacks began rioting in the North beginning in Harlem in 1964.  Riots spread to the West and South by the late 60s, and there were some 700 riots by 1971.  Crime, what the New York Times once called a riot in slow motion, rose to unheard of heights.  Somehow, the right to vote, to eat a burger, to attend a neighborhood school, was translated into Ebonics as the right to threaten, to pull a purse, snatch a wallet, to beat, stab, even kill.
            The Kerner Commission blamed the riots on racism, and urged the hiring of more Blacks in the media and police departments.  And some of those hires have been good.  If one watches a film from the 1930s, one might hear a policeman shout to a fleeing suspect, “Stop, Stop or I’ll shoot!”  By the 60s, if a policeman shot a Black, the policeman was suddenly tried in the media and might be tried in court.  Judges were quickly shoving the pendulum to weigh on the side of the accused, and against society’s enforcers on the ground.  This patronizing view can best be seen in the death penalty.  Who were most of the accused murderers?  Blacks, then about 10% of the population were convicted of about 50% of the murders.  Surely, in the proportional view, the affirmative action view, this disproportion among the races was evidence of racism.  The best way to abolish the racism might be to abolish the death penalty.  Judges, sworn to uphold the Constitution, clearly were aware that the Constitution itself mentions the death penalty for a crime.  The Supreme Court made an utterly political decision finding the death penalty un-Constitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.  Even some years later, when the Court finally reversed itself, it made the cost of achieving a verdict of execution so high, that many states stopped trying.  Also, a white is more likely to be executed for murder than a Black in affirmative action America.  The reason: the court does not want the percentage of Black executions to be too disproportionate to the white executions.  Blacks who kill whites are more likely to be executed; Blacks who kill Blacks less so.
            Blacks are far more likely to be involved in criminal activity than whites.  Philosophy professor Michael Levin wrote that if a brand of automobile broke down one fourth of the time on the road, a buyer might rationally choose another brand of car.  Today, one third of young Black men are either in prison, on parole, or on probation.  One third.  (Since Prof. Levin wrote his book two decades ago, the percentage of Blacks involved in crime has risen.) The percentage of white criminals is far smaller.  Young Blacks as a group are far more likely to be violent criminals.  This is why even liberal Rev. Jesse Jackson once conceded that if walking on a dark street and he hears footsteps behind him, if he turns and sees that it is a group of whites, he may feel relieved.  (Jackson related this in 1993 after Colin Ferguson killed six whites and injured 19 others on the Long Island Rail Road.)  This is why Obama’s grandmother was rational when she admitted fear of unknown Blacks.  The chances are 1 out of 3.  The Left will shout, this is racial profiling.  No, it is criminal profiling.  When Blacks as a group cease to be so crime-prone, then others will have a different view of them.
            One reason Blacks are more likely to engage in crime is the punishment may not be so bad.  Often little happens to punish minority juveniles on many charges.  In schools, physical punishment from the staff is almost as archaic as the hickory stick.  If unruly or criminal minority juveniles are finally sent to a juvenile facility, they will probably encounter old friends, and learn more of how to improve their criminal skills.  Same with jail.  By contrast, in many states, if a white is sent to a correction facility, he will be a minority facing hostile Blacks.  Despite the propaganda of the feminists about alleged date rapes (sometimes, the vindictive response of a gal when her hangover cleared, or her Women’s councilor urged her to file because the guy did not call her the next day for another date.), there are many more rapes of men in the US – and almost all of these in prisons.  Often, it is Black on white rape.  But this is politically incorrect, so ignore it, or excuse it.
            I do not know all the details of the Trayvon Martin shooting.  However, the Left has been determined to prevent people from defending themselves and their property from theft or worse.   That is the significance of the case.  The Hispanic Zimmerman lived in a neighborhood of growing crime.  Police cannot be everywhere all the time.  He hoped to defend his and his neighbor’s property.  Trayvon, who had been suspended from school, who had a bag of women’s jewelry in his possession when apprehended in school, who had drugs in his possession, and whose internet account bragged about doing something to a bus driver, was certainly no angel.  Was he simply purchasing items for his dad in this new neighborhood, or casing apartments to acquire a new bag of jewelry?  And the confrontation?  The specifics of this case are beyond my knowledge.  I want to make the point of the long-range trend.  At one point a man’s home was his castle and he could defend it against an intruder with any weapon handy, even killing the invader.  Because the proportion of Blacks involved in such crimes is higher, the Left does not want anyone to shoot the intruder.  Under liberalism, the castle’s moat has been bridged, the ramparts sundered, the lady raped and the television stolen.  The Left responds, “Oh, we are so sorry, but we must not hurt the intruder.  That would be racist!”  Similarly, we should not execute the murderer; that would be racist.  We should not stop the shop lifter; that would be racist.  With the Left, there is only one crime that should be punished – the “crime” of racism.  The result of all these changes is a crime rate that would not have been tolerated six decades ago.  It should not be tolerated today.  But so long as the only major crime is racism, and excusiology rules the academedia complex and the courts, violent crime will remain high.
            And how does this affect the workplace?  In 1950 an employer, about to hire a young person for a job, might ask about his high-school grades.  Since Blacks did poorly, Norton and the EEOC sought to prevent that.  The employer might ask about criminal background.  Because Blacks were much more likely to have a criminal record, Norton and the EEOC sought to prevent that question too.  And the courts agreed with her.  (Of course, some of the crimes were political.  Martin Luther King wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail.  But most of the Blacks with criminal records had them for violent crimes.)
            So “basically qualified” (i.e., lesser qualified or simply unqualified) Black and Hispanic applicants were hired over whites with good backgrounds.  They entered jobs where there might indeed be friction.  An influx of lesser qualified, more violent, more foul-mouthed co-workers could change the work place.  And, even if they performed poorly, they were more likely to receive the promotion, thanks to affirmative action.  The mix was toxic.  Sometimes, someone would go postal, and co-workers would be shot.  More likely, the whites simply became despondent.  Charles Murray in his new book Coming Apart writes how many working-class whites have now become work-shy.  Why should they be enthusiastic when the promotion will go to the lesser-qualified, loud minority?  Liberal programs have created a work-place determined to destroy the work ethic.
            Another consequence of these Leftist, affirmative action policies, is that new businesses try to locate in suburbs, away from central city.  The unspoken reason for this is clear: who wants to run a business with employees who are drugged-out, who never finished high school, who may have criminal records, and who are angry?  Consequently, plants evacuated the cities.  Some fled to the suburbs for white workers.  Some simply fled the United States for plants in Mexico, China, Bangladesh.
            As effects of the reforms of the 50s and 60s have rippled through American society,  with racial balance, affirmative action (AA), diversity, and all the anti-white policies, the nation has become more crime-ridden, less academic, less well educated, and in decline in industry, culture, civility, and in most ways.  Instead of turning many Blacks into civilized whites, American cities have become Third World enclaves of ignorance, violence, and barbarism.  “Hey, hey.  Ho, ho.  Western Civ. Has got to go!”  Will the future of America be Detroit?
            Some 60 years ago this country began to implement reforms based upon the theory that all races were equally gifted in all areas of life.  When Blacks failed to perform up to standard, excuses were made, standards were lowered or abolished, and affirmative action preferences were introduced and expanded.  Originally, many assumed these would be short-term programs.  Even some of the Supreme Court Judges who upheld affirmative action thought of them as temporary remedies.  One judge in the Bakke case posited AA preferences might last about 20 years.  Of course, 20 years later, there was no significant change in the gap between Blacks and whites.  So, 20 years later in the Michigan university cases AA cases, Justice O’Connor, the deciding vote upholding AA, stated in her decision that such preferences might continue another 25 years.  Does anyone really believe the race gap will be closed in 25 years?  Or in 250 years? 
The assumption was that with the a-a preferences, Blacks would do better in school, get better jobs, and eschew crime.  That was the theory.  The reality proved the theory wrong.  We have 60 years of disproof, the theory is wrong, and all the programs based upon that false theory have generally failed.  It is time to stop adding new epicycles to the social equivalent of Ptolemy’s geo-centric view; scrap it, and adopt a more Copernican theory.  It is time to stop concocting ever new excuses for the failings of many of a race.  Moreover, we should also reconsider the words of the scholar who would become a Democratic Senator from New York.  Daniel Moynihan observed in the late 1960s that the New York public school system, which had “transformed two generations of Jewish immigrants into the intellectual elite of the world’s most powerful nation,”’ was unable “to bring its black students,…up to grade level.”(As quoted in Hugh Graham, Civil Rights Era, p. 311)
            I repeat, almost all the myriad programs for the past 60 years have been built on the assumption that all races, as groups, are equal.  These programs have generally failed.  Despite all the billions of dollars spent on Head Start and so many other programs, despite all the preferences in university admissions, in university scholarships, in job hiring, job promotions, in set-aside contracts, in ability to borrow for purchase of homes, etc., the gaps between Black and white remain.  Crime is high; Black racism is rampant; the work ethic for many has evaporated, jobs have immigrated to other nations; America is in decline.
            Sixty years ago America began an experiment based on the assumption that Blacks were white people with dark skins.  The results of the experiment are in.  A large number of Blacks simply do not act as whites; do not perform as whites. Whether they are incapable, or unwilling is irrelevant at this point.  If they are by nature different, or victims of their own anti-intellectual and violent culture (which, admittedly, is encouraged by the liberal media) is also irrelevant at this point.  It is time to see the results of the experiment.  If it continues, the experiment will destroy the laboratory.  It will destroy America.
            It is time to restore the CRA of 1964 to its original meaning.  Hire by merit, not the color of the skin.  Use testing and check backgrounds.  Punish bad behavior and criminals.  Stop excusing inexcusable behavior when performed by minorities.  Do not hire for racial balance.  Do not treat groups equally, but treat individuals equally.  Then perhaps America can rebuild – before it is too late.  Perhaps then, America can be America again. 

Friday, May 4, 2012

PBS program on Jesse Owens

     Sadly, the PBS program revives the old lie about Hitler snubbing Jesse Owens by not shaking his hand after the American had won a gold medal. After greeting German medalists, Hitler had been admonished by leaders of the IOC either to congratulate all winners or none, and not to single out those of his own nation for special treatment. Hitler decided NOT to congratulate any other winners in his box. Owens then won additional medals and soon became a star with the crowds in the Berlin stadium who shouted Ohvens (his name pronounced in German). Leni Riefenstahl, in her superb film of the Olympics, is fair to Owens, and to the Korean who won the marathon, running for Imperial Japan. I think Owens and the other Americans also saw their first television coverage of the sports event.  Some allege that Owens was granted a sum when he appeared in the Landon for President parade in 1936. Owens was snubbed by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt and Democrat Harry Truman. He won later recognition from Republican President Eisenhower. But PBS will not criticize FDR or HST. Better to pretend that Owens was snubbed by Hitler.
     I do not pretend that Hitler was happy about Owens, or any Blacks, winning medals in 1936.  Indeed, he had hoped to change the rules of the Olympics so in future Blacks would not be allowed to compete.  Still, one might hope that PBS could refrain from its Democratic Party partisanship for an hour.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012


School Suspensions: More Official Baloney
By Jared Taylor on April 27, 2012 at 8:33pm
American Renaissance, April 26, 2012

Bureaucrats and “scholars” are blind to the facts.
In mid-March, the Department of Education reported that black and Hispanic students are suspended from school at higher rates than whites. This has been known for years, but every time it is reported there is outrage. Education Secretary Arne Duncan worried about the “the most alarming findings.” He lamented that “minority students across America face much harsher discipline than non-minorities, even within the same school,” adding that “the everyday education experience for too many students of color violates the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise.”
The secretary did warn that “overt discrimination” might not fully account for these differences, but others were not so cautious. The National Education Policy Center at the University of Boulderannounced that “researchers have found no evidence that students of color engage in more misbehavior than White students,” which leaves discrimination as the only culprit. Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of a minority-oriented organization called the Advancement Project, explained that “there’s bias in classrooms.” She added that “there’s also this perception of children of color as being criminals.” The Chicago Teachers Union responded to the report by saying that “the data lends further credibility” to its belief that school practices “amount to educational apartheid for a significant number of students.” The media appeared to quote no one who pointed out that racial differences in suspension rates might simply reflect differences in offense rates.
The Department of Education’s study, unaccountably titled “Revealing New Truths About Our Nation’s Schools,” presented the data graphically:
Black boys are indeed, suspended at about three times the rate for white boys, and black girls at nearly four times the white rate. However, every account of these findings ignored the fact that, asstudy after study has shown, Asians are suspended less often than whites. If it is “alarming” that black boys are suspended at three times the rate for white boys, why is it not “alarming” that white girls are suspended at three times Asian rate?
Boys are at least twice as likely to be suspended as girls, but no one talks about that either. Everyone knows that boys behave worse than girls, but to acknowledge sex differences in behavior might suggest the possibility of race differences. Correction:Almost everyone understands this. The Southern Poverty Law Center worried that the data “raise important questions about . . . the possibility of conscious or unconscious racial and gender biases at the school level.” (emphasis added)
Just a few weeks after its report on suspension rates, the Department of Education issued a joint report with the Department of Justice called Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011. It got a bit of press attention, too, mainly for pointing out that although there were more than 1,000,000 violent crimes committed at American public schools, only about 300,000 are reported to the police.
What went unremarked were the race data in the report, which flatly contradict the view that there are no race differences in levels of misbehavior at school. Secretary Arne Duncan, who expressed such alarm over suspension rates, ignored the race data. You have to dig for the information, and it is not presented in pretty bar graphs like the suspension rates, but the picture is clear.
Table 7.1, for example, deserves serious study (click on the figure to see an enlarged version).
This table is the result of polling teachers about the problems they have in their schools. The schools are in four categories, according to the number of students who are non-white. Translated into terms that make more sense, the top row schools are at least 95 percent white. The second row schools are 80 to 95 percent whites, the third row are 50 to 80 percent white, and the fourth row are less than 50 percent white. The numbers in the rows are the percentages of these schools that have the kinds of problems described along the top horizontal axis. The ‡ and ! symbols mean that the reported numbers are so low they are meaningless or that sample sizes are unreliable.
The first thing to notice is that aside from sexual and sexual-orientation harassment and bullying, every category gets consistently worse as a school gets less white. To take the first category—racial or ethnic tensions—schools that are 95 percent or more white essentially do not suffer from that problem at all. Not surprisingly, racially mixed campuses do. No less than 4.5 percent of majority non-white schools have racial/ethnic problems at least once a week.
There are similar patterns with “student verbal abuse of teachers” and “widespread disorder in the classroom.” There are essentially no all-white schools where this happens as often as once a week, but the percentages grow as the student body gets less white. Schools with a lot of “verbal abuse of teachers” and “widespread disorder in the classroom” sound like schools where suspensions might be more common.
The report does not explain what is meant by “student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse,” but it undoubtedly includes behavior—hitting a teacher, for example?—that merits suspension. The less white the school, the more of this there is. “Gang activities”—and might these not also require firm discipline?—are no less than 19 times more common in white-minority schools than in schools that are all- or nearly all-white. This table by itself gives the lie to the notion that all races behave in the same way.
And even the categories of offence that appear to be as common in white schools as in non-white schools may not be. Is it unreasonable to assume that what is flagged as bullying or sexual harassment in an all-white school with very few behavior problems is simply overlooked in a majority non-white school with gang activity and “widespread disorder in the classroom”?
Table 6.5 contains eye-opening information, too.
The “serious violent incidents” in this table are the real thing: rape, robbery, and actual or threatened attack with a weapon. There are some deviations from perfect correlation, but the trend is clear: White schools have fewer serious violent incidents (the # sign means “rounds to zero). If there is anything that deserves suspension, it is surely violent crime, and violent crime increases as the number of non-whites increases.
Figure 13.2 shows who is fighting in schools. This is one of the rare visual representations of race-related data in this report, and the findings are consistent with suspension patterns: Blacks fight more than Hispanics, who fight more than whites, who fight more than Asians.
Table 13.2 goes into more detail on fighting. Blacks are twice as likely as whites, for example, to have been in four to 11, or 12 or more fights in the past year.
The other government department—the Department of Justice—that helped write Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011 has useful information, too.  If there are no racial differences in misbehavior rates in school, there should be no racial differences in juvenile arrest rates. DOJ data prove otherwise.

Again, these are juvenile arrest rates for the very worst offenses: murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. In its usual, unhelpful way, DOJ lumps most Hispanics together with whites rather than break them out as a separate group, thus inflating white offense rate. This means the black/white gap is even greater than what is depicted here. Even with Hispanics included with whites, in 2009, black juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17 were four times more likely than white juveniles to be arrested for serious, violent crime.
There are still a few people who believe that arrest rates do not reflect offense rates; that prejudiced cops arrest innocent blacks. Such people forget that violent crimes short of murder usually have witnesses, and that the police arrest perpetrators who match victims’ descriptions. For police bias to cause race gaps of this magnitude, we would have to imagine the police arresting blacks even when the victim said the attacker was white, or refusing even to look for the perp if the victim said he was white. This is absurd.
DOJ has data on race differences in arrest rates for other crimes. The gaps for murder and robbery, for example, are particularly large.


The data on juvenile arrests for disorderly conduct includes Asians and Americans Indians. They bear out the consistent pattern of very low Asian offense rates.

It would be wrong to assume that blacks top the arrest rates for all crimes. As this chart shows, young whites and Indians are arrested far more often than blacks for breaking liquor laws.

Race differences in rates of arrest for drinking offenses further discredit the notion that “racist” police unfairly target blacks. Public or under-age drinking is an offense for which the police have enormous leeway on whether to make an arrest. Unlike the pressure on police to arrest violent criminals, the public does not much care whether there are arrests of under-age drinkers. That means liquor-law violations would be a perfect opportunity to exercise police “racism:” Arrest the blacks and ignore the whites. Instead, whites (and Indians) are arrested more often for these offenses because they commit more of them than blacks or Asians. DOJ’s arrest rates confirm reports from schools: Different groups behave differently.
Readers will recall that the National Education Policy Center at the University of Boulder claims that there is “no evidence” that blacks commit crimes at higher rates that whites. Daniel J. Losen, who made that claim, is either a fool or a liar; perhaps both. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who makes much of racial differences in suspension rates but ignores his own department’s well established data that explain those differences, is, at best, deceitful.
Propaganda of this kind puts unfair pressure on teachers and administrators who may well be disciplining students as fairly as possible. There may be legitimate debate as to whether school suspension cures misbehavior or about how specific offenses should be punished, but to pretend that there are no race differences in student behavior—and to blame “prejudiced” teachers for differences in suspension rates—is contemptible. People who make these claims do not care about facts. They ignore anything that contradicts their blinkered conception of blacks (and now Hispanics) as perpetual victims and whites as perpetual oppressors.
Nor is it the job of the media to swallow whatever Arne Duncan tells them. Why did not even one mainstream account of the DOE study point out the obvious: that different groups are disciplined at different rates because they behave differently? Reporters who pass along deceit are as contemptible as the bureaucrats and “scholars” who feed it to them.
Jared Taylor (email him) is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. (For Peter Brimelow’s review, click here.) His new book, White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century, can be purchased here.

This is the first time I have included the writings of another author.  Clearly, I deem his article worth reading.---------Hugh Murray
Unfortunately, the graphs did not load, so one must follow the text or go to another site for the graphs.--------HM