Clyde Edgerton banned from public school property: the insidious nature of institutionalized racism

The writer Clyde Edgerton (Raney, Walking Across Egypt) was banned from public school property this month by the School Superintendent, in a controversy that accused the school system, and one school in particular, of discriminatory policies:

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20160528/NEWS/160529674/1177?Title=Overwhe...

Basically, I think Edgerton noted the lack of diversity in the Immersion Program, tried to take steps to rectify it, and in the process made himself annoying to the school administration. It is a good illustration in the microcosm of how a lack of a clear policy on diversity, or any clear strategy for meeting the needs of minority students results in a de facto discriminatory policy and practice.

"Few would accept a policy that would say the richest, wealthiest, most well-off people get first choice," said Derek Black, a University of South Carolina law professor who specializes in education policy. "But if you call it first come, first serve, it sounds like it's neutral and fair."

Sometimes the US seems among the most backward countries in the world.

>2 RickHarsch: To people who have a knee-jerk dislike of the US, of course. More logically, most countries have some sort of similar problem with social groups that get treated differently, and the system that would never ban someone inappropriately from school property when keeping unsafe people off school property is pretty utopian.

There seems to have been concerns that he was harassing people and had inappropriate access to student files. If true, these do seem to be serious concerns.

I actually know Clyde, and can say with confidence that "inappropriate access to student files" is not what is in question here. A parent complained because they didn't know how people had their number. As if parent groups don't exchange numbers with each other for multiple reasons and don't talk to each other about the welfare of their kids.

Far more serious a concern, it seems to me, would be the school demanding a detailed report of how the group obtained their contact lists and information. That sounds like the kind of request of a private citizen that would require a court order or something.

>3 prosfilaes: My knee began jerking when I was about six or seven when I noticed the disparity between the teachings of Jesus (as taught to me in Sunday school) and the way adults around me behaved, particularly concerning money. No one seriously doubts the deleterious effects of the profit motive on civilization, so I believe I had that one right. I was taught that the US was quite a special place, a Reaganesque view that began disintegrating as I began understanding the Vietnam war, as I watched the US behaviour towards Central America in the 1980s...and I guess I could go on and on up to the current hideous state of the US health care system...but, Prosfilaes, I find it an especially vacuous cliche, that 'knee-jerk dislike of the US' method of avoiding thought, that excuse not to listen. Whose knee is really jerking?

>4 southernbooklady: Far more serious a concern, it seems to me, would be the school demanding a detailed report of how the group obtained their contact lists and information. That sounds like the kind of request of a private citizen that would require a court order or something.

The state can ask for whatever it wants. They only need a court order to compel you to turn it over. The article says

In addition to the ban, Markley requested that Edgerton "turn over all students records (including copies), other than those of your own children, that you may have in your possession along with a detailed report of how you obtained the records."

Student records is more specific then just how they obtained their contact lists, and if they are something that if Edgerton has, it's probably a bit inappropriate. I would assume from what you say that he doesn't in fact have possession of any such student records, in which case the supervisor is jumping to conclusions or (though I prefer to assume the best of people) deliberately implying something to be true when he doesn't believe it is.

I'd say the supervisor is deliberately implying something in order to put Edgerton in as poor a light as possible. You don't get to that kind of position without having some skill at political infighting.

>5 RickHarsch: No one seriously doubts the deleterious effects of the profit motive on civilization

That is a seriously complex topic for another thread; may I point out that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the profit motive? That we're talking about free public education funded by the state?

I guess I could go on and on

Exactly. Precisely none of that had anything to do with the topic, with justifying why a school using "first come, first serve" for a school program despite discriminatory results and the supervisor getting annoyed at someone who rocks the boat on that matter, amounts to "the US seems among the most backward countries in the world." "First come, first serve" is easy, and it has a facile defense against being biased, and if it has a bias towards "the richest, wealthiest, most well-off people", well, how many countries won't have many superintendents who refuse to see that or even appreciate it? An immersion program that favors Europeans over the Muslims, or the Chinese over the Africans, or Hong Kong students over rural immigrants from Guangdong Province? You don't think you can find school superintendents who at least secretly are fans of those things, as appropriate for the locale?

Seriously, you don't see why bringing up a war that was over forty years ago and a politician who retired twenty-five years ago in a discussion of current events might make people dismiss your opinion?

>8 prosfilaes: I love the line in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf 'It takes a swine to show you where the truffles are.' Your words are sodden with hypocrisy. I gave my immediate reaction to the OP. You came in with the topic widening asininity: 'To people who have a knee-jerk dislike of the US, of course.' So I spoke to you of that.

The funny part is that you scold me, engage me, further widening the topic, and then end by scolding again. What I wrote first was a weary reaction to yet another unnecessary idiocy. What you wrote was junior high school debate level cliche. So I responded to that. And then you take issue with how I have strayed. And you stray and whine about straying. Your only 'excuse' is the rather lame: And so is your mother--it may be true elsewhere. Get back to the topic, son.

Upon further reflection, I think it is pertinent to point out that US historians of foreign policy have established that the US quite commonly uses tactics similar to those of Nazi Germany to dehumanize their opponents in warfare. Racism is a US weapon of war, so the OP actually invites a broad spectrum of responses.

I am currently looking to find the title of the best book I have read on the subject, but read it some thirty years ago and I have yet to find it. Though I believe few here would seriously doubt the truth of the assertion.

>10 RickHarsch: Upon further reflection, I think it is pertinent to point out that US historians of foreign policy have established that the US quite commonly uses tactics similar to those of Nazi Germany to dehumanize their opponents in warfare.

I'm not sure what tactics you mean but all countries dehumanize their opponents during war. How else are you going to get your children to kill their children?

>11 jjwilson61: I expected that objection, but I am not sure it's actually true. Dehumanizing the enemy is certainly common enough, but I was brought up to believe that the US was different and superior to all other nations in history. But racism is deeply embedded in the US and has been from the foundation. It persists, and so it's simple to get the folk worked up during war. Primarily the tactics involve language, and visual 'arts', cartoons, posters, and once the time became right, film. But another tactic is teaching false history that suggests the US is the culmination of human endeavor. It's only a guess on my part, but I would imagine that the people of the US are the most deluded about the nature and history of their own country of all the world's peoples.

Exceptions to the rule you mention might include victims of greater powers. For instance, I have never thought of the Vietnamese guilty of dehumanizing the French or the US troops. I've never considered Jews guilty of dehumanizing Germans--of course a relative few had the opportunity to fight.

All militaries use the same basic methods of indoctrination and de-humanizing the enemy. (Warrior cultures are different, but they all lost to soldier cultures.). You could time scoop a Zulu induna from Shaka Zulu's time, drop him into Army basic training camp, and he'd do just fine. The system to produce effective soldiers is very old, and hasn't changed that much because it works.

American exceptionalism has been brought up before, and most people seem to agree that the U. S. isn't that exceptional among nations; it just has a better PR campaign.

All.

All. Take a large group of teenage males. Separate them from their families and friends. Cut them off from outside social contact and the opposite sex. Put a mature alpha male who can best them in every physical contest in charge of them. Stress them with lack of sleep, intense physical exercise, and physical demands for every mis-step or perceived violation of arbitrary new rules. Constantly tell them they're worthless and pathetic, and drill them on their new type of life. Continue for 8-14 weeks. Apply as needed for your country's military adventures.

The above formula (with a few modifications) is the one used by every soldier culture on Earth...because it works.

Again, the Vietnamese needed no such methods. For one of many examples.

Are you referring to the resistance to the French/Japanese/American invaders...or the regular (North) Vietnamese Army?

For militia, rebels, and sympathizers, no, the above methods aren't used, because they aren't needed. They ARE needed for any type of regular soldier army, and the Vietnamese certainly produced one, given their performance in Cambodia.

Resisting an invader is much easier (psychologically) than invading, even when the cause is just.

Getting people to fight and die for a nation when it's not their families on the line requires more than rhetoric.

The 'regular' army was formed by decades of not resistance but war against an invader, which is a great deal more than resistance. General Giap, for instance, was far more than a general of a resistance 'group'.