Coalition on Race Responds to Candidate Forum Question Dispute archived

RVM said:

CCR's public funding is miniscule. That's not an issue.

The co-opting of CCR, now a cog in a corrupt political machine, is an issue.

no.....it most certainly is an issue

RVM said:

CCR's public funding is miniscule. That's not an issue.

The co-opting of CCR, now a cog in a corrupt political machine, is an issue.

The funding is an issue for me, minuscule tho it may be. I have not given them a dime in years because they chose to enter the SoOrange political arena and helped fuel an issue rather than bring common sense to the table. I was sorry to read that S. Orange has once again included funding for them. Unlike the League of Women Voters, they seem to be incapable of remaining impartial during a BOE election.

kmt said:

But it didn't stand on its own. That statement was made in the context of a criticism of the deleveling effort as disruptive to all high-achieving kids (including black kids) and ineffective at addressing the real problems that are the cause of the achievement gap (the fact is that such a gap exists, and the levels have been a witness to that fact rather than a cause of it). He predicated his statements on the assumption that a good education for all kids (including black kids) is in the best interest of everybody. He stated that his opinion about the causes of this achievement gap came from his experience as a psychiatrist dealing with prisoners and troubled adolescents.

He also said that the board took the flimsiest of evidence and ran with it, however inappropriately, to suit their agenda. It's a sad irony that in the process of making that observation, his own testimony would be used in a similar way.

Shameful. Slander. His treatment is totally inappropriate for rational public discourse.

Right, whatever. Please note that Wayne Eastman specifically disavowed these comments here: http://maplewood.patch.com/articles/respecting-judgmental-passion-and-moving-beyond-it

Jeff Bennett was also quoted by Patch saying: "The comment had nothing to do with me nor do I agree with it."

Good job by each of them. I voted for the other ticket, but Wayne Eastman is a friend and a very thoughtful person. I'm sure Wayne will do his best to help piece things back together after this very nasty election.

The rest of you still fulminating about slander might want to take the lead of your candidates here.

dave said:

Has anyone else noted that the CCR is now providing a service that is contrary to its mission?

I posted about this sometime ago noting that they had morphed from an organization that advocated "stable integration" to becoming a "black advocacy" group heavily involved in many aspects of local politics, with a primary mission evolved to the racial "equity" cause, which basically means anything you want it to mean. The CCR's meddling in the schools is the most concerning of their mission "overshoot". Deleveling the schools was about "equity", as well as their stated interests in affecting the hiring decisions by the BOE for new teachers.

The CCR is a shadow political organization hiding behind an abandoned mission while pursuing a grab at the purse strings of local government. They maintain their funding because of their power over our local politicians, many of whom are members. They have a right to organize as they like without the public funds they use for the legitimacy they hide behind to disguise their political agenda.

RVM said:

CCR's public funding is miniscule. That's not an issue.

The co-opting of CCR, now a cog in a corrupt political machine, is an issue.

As long as they are not receiving public funding they should be allowed to promote and lobby for whatever cause they wish. I have no objection to them holding debates, explicitly supporting candidates, whatever. The problem is that they are a political action group that should not be publicly funded. I do think that based on this election, their days as community king-makers are numbered. Maybe they can go back to doing what they should be doing - promoting the towns to prospective residents, rather than turning every election or stray BOT comment into a *****show and creating divisiveness and turmoil in its wake.

I think people should be free to speak about their thoughts as concerns race in this context and others. I think that was part of the mission of the Coalition, as they confirm here, taken from the above blog:

We feel a commitment to hold to our standard for candor in acknowledging a variety of opinions in the community. We understand that questions that focused on a comment made on “black underachievement” at a BOE meeting submitted by the audience made some people feel uncomfortable.We had to assess seven questions on the topic on the fly--in the midst of the debate-- and to select one which seemed the most representative of all. Given the number of questions submitted by the audience that focused on that issue, a decision was made to ask the question in the interests of being transparent and of bringing forward even those issues that are painful.


The moderator appropriately offered to pull the question and to move on when concern was expressed by some of the candidates. It is extremely important to the trustees of the Coalition on Race that we remain true to our mission to be candid about race in our community. We feel that it was appropriately transparent and authentic to ask the question, but regret any perception that is was presented in a manner that did not allow all the candidates to contrast their points of view with that of the individual in question. As always, our intention is to promote transparency in public discourse and we continue to strive to do so.


Anthony Greene, Chair
Nancy Gagnier, Executive Director
South Orange/Maplewood Community Coalition on Race

Agreed with CCR. An open honest debate is "a priori" free speech.

Agree with campbell29...sort of. Educational researchers understand that motivation and achievement are a function of a multitude of factors, among them social experiences. The influence of family, peers, culture, and school sub-environments are all group contexts that have been explored and determined to exert a significant impact. But, we also have to remember that no large body such as a racial group, a religious group, or even a political group (e.g. even tea party members!) is monolithic and share precisely the same set of all values. My concerns about Dr. Reeves' comments (based on viewing the video) is that he seemed to be speaking about "black culture" as though there is one such social grouping to which all African-Americans belong. I have no doubt that there are sub-groups within black or white America that don't value or actively support educational achievement. However, I find it difficult to accept the notion that there is such a thing as "black culture" or "white culture" that is all encompassing and to which all African-Americans or Whites belong. If I have misinterpreted Dr. Reeves' statement, I apologize.

Norman_Bates said:

Agree with campbell29...sort of. Educational researchers understand that motivation and achievement are a function of a multitude of factors, among them social experiences. The influence of family, peers, culture, and school sub-environments are all group contexts that have been explored and determined to exert a significant impact. But, we also have to remember that no large body such as a racial group, a religious group, or even a political group (e.g. even tea party members!) is monolithic and share precisely the same set of all values. My concerns about Dr. Reeves' comments (based on viewing the video) is that he seemed to be speaking about "black culture" as though there is one such social grouping to which all African-Americans belong. I have no doubt that there are sub-groups within black or white America that don't value or actively support educational achievement. However, I find it difficult to accept the notion that there is such a thing as "black culture" or "white culture" that is all encompassing and to which all African-Americans or Whites belong. If I have misinterpreted Dr. Reeves' statement, I apologize.

+1

Actually Norman, I think that if you view Dr. Reeves's testimony, you'll find agreement with that idea. He specifically made the point that deleveling is disruptive to white and black kids, and that in his experience as a psychiatrist helping prisoners and troubled adolescents, his view is that single-parent households and culture can and do impose academic handicaps on kids who could otherwise do well (and who he stated he wants to see do well, and that it's in all of our best interest that they do well).

White culture, black culture, seriously. What does Isaac Newton have in common with Adolf Hitler other than the color of his skin? What does Neil deGrasse Tyson have in common with Idi Amin other than the color of his skin? Look at what we've become in this debate. We are *better than this* people!

If levelling was/is so discriminatory, how did non-white kids ever get into the higher levels? This entire argument is so farcical as to make me spit up vomit. instead of wholesale delevelling, have these geniuses even atempted to simply ramp up the speed in the lower levels and see if that has any positive result, rather than ratcheting down the speed in the higher levels?

BaseballMom said:

The moderator states, in relevant part:

"This questioner says a close supporter of yours, Mr. Bennett, Dr. Reeves -- I'm not sure of the context -- says that the problem in our district is black culture. The person writing this question finds this offensive. Does this sound familiar, a close supporter says black culture is the problem in this district...

Sadly, it is much more exciting to take words out of context, completely manipulate them, all for political expediency, with complete disregard for the individual. This is one reason I really admire people who step up to the plate for these kinds of public positions. It is rough out there. I know that I like to speak my mind, and I would be in deep trouble, since I know my ideas are often strong.

kmt said:

...his view is that single-parent households and culture can and do impose academic handicaps on kids who could otherwise do well (and who he stated he wants to see do well, and that it's in all of our best interest that they do well).

Yes, all this, lost in the translation.

kareno said:

BaseballMom said:

The moderator states, in relevant part:

"This questioner says a close supporter of yours, Mr. Bennett, Dr. Reeves -- I'm not sure of the context -- says that the problem in our district is black culture. The person writing this question finds this offensive. Does this sound familiar, a close supporter says black culture is the problem in this district...

Sadly, it is much more exciting to take words out of context, completely manipulate them, all for political expediency, with complete disregard for the individual. This is one reason I really admire people who step up to the plate for these kinds of public positions. It is rough out there. I know that I like to speak my mind, and I would be in deep trouble, since I know my ideas are often strong.

kmt said:

...his view is that single-parent households and culture can and do impose academic handicaps on kids who could otherwise do well (and who he stated he wants to see do well, and that it's in all of our best interest that they do well).

Yes, all this, lost in the translation.

+1

The CCR took the statements of someone who works professionally with prisoners and troubled adolescents, and thus has insights that might be useful to hear, but used them out of context and twisted them into an accusation of racism. By doing so, they may have helped their favored candidates lose, and have certainly done offense to someone who dedicated his professional career to helping the disadvantaged.

I don't know Dr. Reeves, but I heard what he said in remonstrances, and I'm embarrassed to share a community with those who would twist his attempts to understand a problem into accusations of racism. We will never make progress as a community if we can only move forward by avoiding the reality that we come from many cultures and backgrounds, that no group is monolithic, and that we don't solve problems by pretending they don't exist. We also solve no problems by being fast and loose with accusations of racism (or reverse racism, for that matter).

susan1014 said:

The CCR took the statements of someone who works professionally with prisoners and troubled adolescents, and thus has insights that might be useful to hear, but used them out of context and twisted them into an accusation of racism. By doing so, they may have helped their favored candidates lose, and have certainly done offense to someone who dedicated his professional career to helping the disadvantaged.

Susan - I believe that someone anonymous took the statement of Dr. Reeves and formulated a question that was out of context and twisted. The CCR gave voice to that question. The first act was reprehensible. The second act showed complete lack of judgement and inability to be non-partisan.

These offensive comments were specifically disavowed by Wayne Eastman and Jeff Bennett. Amazingly, some on here continue to twist themselves into pretzels in pathetic attempts to justify them.

I voted PEB but am also a supporter on most things of the CCR. I find nothing wrong with them endorsing candidates that support their views and goals. BUT, once they do so, they should not be hosting political debates as they can no longer be perceived to be objective. Under other circumstances, if a neutral organization had taken the same question, phrased it a little better and presented it to all candidates for a response, it would not have garnered SUCH a reaction from people.

Mpd9999 said:

I voted PEB but am also a supporter on most things of the CCR. I find nothing wrong with them endorsing candidates that support their views and goals. BUT, once they do so, they should not be hosting political debates as they can no longer be perceived to be objective. Under other circumstances, if a neutral organization had taken the same question, phrased it a little better and presented it to all candidates for a response, it would not have garnered SUCH a reaction from people.

Yes interesting that this particular statement (not really a coherent question) was targeted at Jeff Bennett alone - Why? Why not all three candidates? . As a political calculation it could be that they perceived him as being most vulnerable - One of two white men up there and without Wayne's longstanding ties to the CCR. Or perhaps they percieved him as their biggest competition as he was the only candidate with experience as a teacher in public K-12 education, or perhaps they were just pissed at him that he had the gall to actually parse the data that Osborne presented on level -up and in doing so actually changed the conversation on the board and in the community. Any way you look at it , it was a political move. The fact that 7 people supposedly submitted the same question, is not in itself good enough reason to ask it. Were they all targeted at Mr. Bennett. Now that would set off alarm bells in my head as a set-up if I were the CCR moderator. Oh and let's not forget that the email with the youtube clip of Dr. Reeves public speaks and Lisa Davis' attempt at linkage to the PEB campaign was sent out the afternoon of the debate night.

Mpd9999 said:

I voted PEB but am also a supporter on most things of the CCR. I find nothing wrong with them endorsing candidates that support their views and goals. BUT, once they do so, they should not be hosting political debates as they can no longer be perceived to be objective. Under other circumstances, if a neutral organization had taken the same question, phrased it a little better and presented it to all candidates for a response, it would not have garnered SUCH a reaction from people.

+1

Thats probably true. Therein lies the difference between having an agenda and having integrity.

One of the things that I find really disheartening is that many posters here are defending a statement that many people (myself included) found incredibly offensive and Eastman and Bennett have distanced themselves from. The fact that some of the posters find nothing wrong with Mr. Reeves' statement says that there is a huge disconnect and no desire at all to bridge this disconnect.

I for one have not opined on the statement itself, and we can debate for years on whether the underlying argument has merit. It's use by the campaign and the CCR was nothing less than a targeted hit job, and thus the primary focus of my ire.

Eastman and Bennett distanced themselves from the statement that "the black achievement gap is due to black culture." This was not the statement that Rusty Reeves made. If the CCR is not willing to retract their contribution to this slander, I wonder if they'll respond to the question of whether or not they singled out Dr. Reeves for having pointed out that they have pursued a political agenda.

kmt said:

Eastman and Bennett distanced themselves from the statement that "the black achievement gap is due to black culture." This was not the statement that Rusty Reeves made.

Slander is what occurred. Those who feel offended, in my opinion, did not listen carefully enough to all that he said, or heard what they wanted to hear in a divisive debate that only picks sides. I don't know Dr. Reeves, or his professional and personal opinions, but I feel for him, because it seems he was misunderstood and used as a political pawn.

kmt said:

Eastman and Bennett distanced themselves from the statement that "the black achievement gap is due to black culture." This was not the statement that Rusty Reeves made. If the CCR is not willing to retract their contribution to this slander, I wonder if they'll respond to the question of whether or not they singled out Dr. Reeves for having pointed out that they have pursued a political agenda.

Your characterization of Eastman and Bennett's comments is just wrong. You are so locked into your position that what he said wasn't offensive that you can't even recognize when your chosen candidates specifically distance themselves from them.

ctrzaska said:

I for one have not opined on the statement itself, and we can debate for years on whether the underlying argument has merit. It's use by the campaign and the CCR was nothing less than a targeted hit job, and thus the primary focus of my ire.

+1

kareno said:

kmt said:

Eastman and Bennett distanced themselves from the statement that "the black achievement gap is due to black culture." This was not the statement that Rusty Reeves made.

Slander is what occurred. Those who feel offended, in my opinion, did not listen carefully enough to all that he said, or heard what they wanted to hear in a divisive debate that only picks sides. I don't know Dr. Reeves, or his professional and personal opinions, but I feel for him, because it seems he was misunderstood and used as a political pawn.

He was not misunderstood. He was understood perfectly well -- and there were cheers of applause for his offensive statement at the meeting. He should have been called out right away for it. Thankfully, Eastman and Bennett have now created the proper distance. Only on here is he still being treated like a martyr.

kmt said:

Eastman and Bennett distanced themselves from the statement that "the black achievement gap is due to black culture." This was not the statement that Rusty Reeves made. If the CCR is not willing to retract their contribution to this slander, I wonder if they'll respond to the question of whether or not they singled out Dr. Reeves for having pointed out that they have pursued a political agenda.

Oh my, this makes the CCR question look even worse than when everyone just assumed that Mr. Reeves was a hapless vicitm of a political campaign ran amok. On the surface, given the fact that Mr. Reeves has publicly questioned funding the CCR, I doubt the moderator was not at least familiar with his name. It does look more and more like a set up to try to humiliate someone because he spoke out against them previously. Who would have thought that Maplewood/South Orange would be the scene of such dirty politics, it seems like such a quiet friendly place, but I guess certain people really know how to play dirty pool when it comes to those who cross them.

And, now, more than ever, it really has nothing to do with the substance of any comment.

kareno said:

kmt said:

Eastman and Bennett distanced themselves from the statement that "the black achievement gap is due to black culture." This was not the statement that Rusty Reeves made.

Slander is what occurred. Those who feel offended, in my opinion, did not listen carefully enough to all that he said, or heard what they wanted to hear in a divisive debate that only picks sides. I don't know Dr. Reeves, or his professional and personal opinions, but I feel for him, because it seems he was misunderstood and used as a political pawn.

In my opinion, what he said doesn't equate what Lisa Davies accuse him of saying in her email (that "Black kids can’t excel because of Black culture.) or what the CCR debate questioner ascribed to him (that "the problem in the district is black culture."). I also acknowledge that his comment was mischaracterized for campaigning purposes and sympathize with his situation of having been made into a political punching bag.

None of this takes away from the fact that I, along with many, many people in our community found his comment to be offensive and insensitive. And I find it disrespectful that you would attribute our reaction to "not listening carefully enough" or only hearing what we wanted to hear instead of trying to understand why so many educated, intelligent and learned members of the community would react to way we did. I am sorely disappointed by this.

Absolutely your feelings are valid, Xavier. I will point out that the (muted) applause was at the end of his talk, when he was going on about data and whether its valid, and the good stuff going on at CHS.

The question here is what in the world this has to do with the election, and I just don't see much connection. He's a private individual who spoke at a meeting, one of hundreds who do so each year, many with comments that wouldn't look too good on the page either, tho not necessarily related to race. (I'm recalling some budget probs that involved special ed.)

I understand that he supports some of the candidates (or we think he does), but is anyone connecting dots btw other speakers at the Bd (or members!) and candidates? Have others in the community made shocking remarks in public? I would say yes.

So the connection here that looks like a problem is the line drawn btw this guy, his misquoted remarks, and candidates -- and the link appears to be at the debate.

I think a lot of us aren't defending what the guy said, but his right to say it.

I think the substance of the question is a perfectly valid issue for debate and discussion. If the schools are going to have any hope of reducing or lessening the achievement gap, it is vital to determine what causes the gap in the first place. Obviously its a very complex issue that exists for many different intertwining reasons. If it weren't so complex, or was easily solved, it would have been done many, many years ago. However, its a problem that does not lend itself to easy solutions, like access to quality preschool, or having parents read to their kids, or setting up afterschool tutoring, all thoough all those things might significantly reduce the gap. In that sort of discussion, then it is perfectly appropriate to talk about cultural influences as a contributor, and whether they exist or not, or if they do exist they have any effect.

There have been plenty of threads here on the connections between the gap and parenting and cultural issues, so I don't think MOL as a group is uncomfortable discussing them. I'm sure if Mr. Reeves started a thread here about the topic, he would have many posters telling him how wrong he is and why, and that would be fine. he would also have a chance to correct anything that he thought was misrepresented, which is exactly not what happened when Ms. Davis decided to make him into a video, and the CCR decided to bring him up by name at a debate.