This administration tried to implement race-based school discipline a few years ago. Now it seeks an Apartheid legal system.
A few years ago Barack Obama proposed that discipline be meted out in schools not on the basis of actions, but on the basis of race.
President Barack Obama is backing a controversial campaign by progressives to regulate schools’ disciplinary actions so that members of major racial and ethnic groups are penalized at equal rates, regardless of individuals’ behavior.
His July 26 executive order established a government panel to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”
“African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline,” said the order, titled “White House Initiative On Educational Excellence.”
Rather than demand better behavior, obama chose to dumb down standards for black students:
“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Eric Holder said
In February, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that “we’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled.”
“This is, quite simply, unacceptable. … These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed,” he said in his speech, given in Atlanta, Ga.
Unfortunately, the disproportionate outcome is not consequent to unequal treatment or conditions. It is consequent to behavior. Holder is right in that it needs to be changed, but to create segregated standards is idiocy.
Well, that didn’t go over too well.
A recent Education Next poll of nearly 4,000 respondents (including oversamples of teachers, African Americans, and Hispanics) suggests that few people think the disparate-impact approach—which some have argued leads to racial quotas—is the best solution. Some of the strongest opposition seems to be from teachers, fewer than a fourth of whom support such policies, as well as those who identify as white. Thirty-five percent of teachers and 36 percent of white respondents answered that they “completely oppose” policies that prevent minorities from being expelled at higher rates, according to the poll, which surveyed Americans on education-policy issues.
Articles such as this one dwell on the effects of suspensions on minorities but not once does it ask why suspensions are doled out disproportionately. The results in areas where this execrable policy has been implemented are, shall we say, less than promising.
Los Angeles Unified School District is seeing a similar spike in campus offenses after its school superintendent followed federal orders to reduce suspensions of African-Americans. Even threats against teachers are ignored, as administrators’ hands are tied by the new policy.
“I was terrified and bullied by a fourth-grade student,” a teacher at a Los Angeles Unified School District school recently noted on the Los Angeles Times website. “The black student told me to ‘Back off, b—h.’ I told him to go to the office and he said, ‘No, b—h, and no one can make me.’ ”
Complained another LAUSD teacher: “We now have a ‘restorative justice’ counselor, but we still have the same problems. Kids aren’t even suspended for fights or drugs.”
A former Philly middle-school teacher complains minority students act out and then dare teachers to kick them out of class, knowing full well their hands are now tied.
“I’m going to torture you,” Allen Zollman says one student told him. “I’m doing this because I can’t be removed.”
In Portland a white female teacher was punched in the face and then told it was her fault because of white privilege:
In Portland, Oregon, Sperry reports, where millions of dollars have been spent on restorative justice and “courageous conversations about race,” a black high school student repeatedly punched his white teacher in the face, sending her to the emergency room. Subsequently, the teacher was reportedly counseled by the assistant principal not to press charges against the student, and was “lectured … about how hard it is for young black men to overcome a criminal record.” Additionally, the teacher said, according to the Willamette Week, the administrator told her to examine what role she, “as a white woman” with white privilege bias, played in her own attack.
This is a harbinger of what’s to come- a race based justice system. Loretta Lynch is extorting communities across the nation, demanding decriminalization for acts by minorities as enforcing the law is racist:
As New York moves to decriminalize low-level offenses, arguing enforcement is “rigged against communities of color,” other large cities are coming under pressure from the Justice Department to do the same thing.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has issued a warning to municipal and state judges across the country that their courts could lose federal funding if they don’t ease up on fines and arrest warrants for minor crimes involving poor offenders, indigent minorities in particular.
Recently barack obama has threatened landlords with significant penalties if they don’t rent out to minority criminals:
“The Fair Housing Act prohibits both intentional housing discrimination and housing practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect because of race, national origin, or other protected characteristics,” say HUD’s newly-released guidelines. “Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics. While the Act does not prohibit housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making housing decisions, arbitrary and overbroad criminal history-related bans are likely to lack a legally sufficient justification.”
Now the Supreme Court will hear an attack on the heart of the legal system– jury trials. If it is successful, jurors could be investigated following a verdict. Worse, the case is being brought by an illegal alien:
Hispanic immigrant Miguel Pena-Rodriguez claims his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated when the state convicted him of criminal sexual contact with two teenage girls. Despite overwhelming evidence against him, Pena-Rodriguez insists he was railroaded because a juror was biased against illegal immigrants.
Most states, along with the federal courts, prohibit the questioning of jurors about claims that one of the members of their panel engaged in misconduct while the jurors were making up their minds.
Largely to protect their privacy, jurors don’t have to testify about their deliberations behind close doors. The rule also is intended to promote the finality of verdicts.
But obama appointee Sotomayor is all in favor of bashing juries:
Obama-appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor has indicated in prior rulings that at least she is open to defendants challenging convictions by attacking jurors as “racist.”
“There may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged,” Sotomayor wrote in a footnote to her opinion in a 2014 case.
A win for the illegal alien could largely destroy the jury system in this country. Who would want to serve on a jury when you could end up on trial for your decisions? Welcome to the new obama world order- justice not based on action, but on race. Black students are allowed to punch out white teachers now without fear of recourse. How long before the next Michael Brown can freely assault a white cop? How far away are from minorities being able to kill white people because of “privilege” and simply walk away? That’s what an Apartheid legal system could bring.
I wonder what Nelson Mandela would think.