Coalition on Race Responds to Candidate Forum Question Dispute archived

CoffeeKing said:

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.

Agree.

xavier67 said:

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.

Agree on all counts. As a supporter of the losing ticket, I was disppointed in Lisa's email. I felt it was unnecessarily inflammatory, even if it only went to a small number of people. And I wasn't at the CCR debate, but it sounds like it was handled badly and that question should not have been asked. That's too bad on a number of levels, not the least of which it gave the CCR-hating contingent in town something more to complain about. Those folks remind me of the ACORN-bashing Republicans of 2008.

Nonetheless, the facts here are that this guy made an offensive comment as he gave public testimony to oppose the de-leveling proposal. He was CHEERED after giving this testimony. And even as Wayne Eastman and Jeff Bennett try to put distance between themselves and a man who hosted a pre-election coffee for them, some on here are ready to launch a legal defense fund and will try to justify these comments by any means necessary.

Why are they so intent on this? Why did they cheer initially at the meeting? Because these comments, unfortunately, gave voice to what many of the levelling supporters believe. Race set this election on edge, and some on here are just determined to seek total absolution for their side.

The attempt at "guilt by association" perpetuated in the debate and in the Davis email reminds me of MCarthyism. Think about it.

xavier67 said:

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.

does it equate with the nonsensical "they want us to be more like Mil[l]burn and other predominantly white communities [blah blah]"? What if a converse statement had been said by a supporter of the winning side? I'm sure all hell would have broken loose. That's what.

BrickTamland said:

xavier67 said:

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.

Nonetheless, the facts here are that this guy made an offensive comment as he gave public testimony to oppose the de-leveling proposal. He was CHEERED after giving this testimony.

I wasn't there but perhaps he was cheered, if he was in fact cheered, because he was giving voice to those who are infuriated at the clear inability or political unwillingness of the BOE to fathom that factors other than blatant racism may be at play in the achievement gap.

.

xavier67 said:

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.

1+

I think the issue as related to the election was not whether Dr. Reeves said what he did (his statement made me quite uncomfortable when I watched it on TV on 3/5) but the attempt to connect his statement to Jeff Bennett and later the PEB campaign and whether he could be dragged around as a scapegoat to disparage a campaign.

dg64 said:

I think the issue as related to the election was not whether Dr. Reeves said what he did (his statement made me quite uncomfortable when I watched it on TV on 3/5) but the attempt to connect his statement to Jeff Bennett and later the PEB campaign and whether he could be dragged around as a scapegoat to disparage a campaign.

You mean, the way the Lisa Davis email was used to disparage a campaign? Pretty much the same deal as far as I'm concerned. I make little distinction between the campaign co-chair and a prominent supporter hosting a coffee -- they're both local residents working to help a presumably nonpartisan local election campaign.

actually not even close.

The debate and letter were what launched him into "prominence." He has been silent on all of this. His remarks in March had nothing to do with the election or candidates.

ice said:

actually not even close.

Yeah, that's true. The losing side didn't have a South Orange Trustee actively intervening and browbeating the other candidates about inflammatory emails because he imagines himself a kingmaker in town now.

CoffeeKing said:

The debate and letter were what launched him into "prominence." He has been silent on all of this. His remarks in March had nothing to do with the election or candidates.

Fair enough. He did host a coffee, which identifies him as an active supporter.

Not sure why I was suddenly reminded of this song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHlMD50eYY

hey there ice

Good one, Ice!

barry_badrinath said:

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?

It isn't an all or nothing thing, but from my observation, borderline kids are/were MUCH more likely to end up in the higher level if white and the lower level if black. And I know of several specific cases where non-white students who had all or mostly As were not put in level 4 until the parent went in and spoke to the administration (and sometimes had to do some significant arguing to get the change made.)

It is truly bizarre. The pro-de-levelers got their way. The middle schools are being de-leveled. It speaks volumes that they would not support the team which won, a team which is committed to holding the administration responsible for seeing that it actually works. No, all they care about are appearances of fairness - i.e. what the classrooms look like. They don't seem to care enough about "the gap" to really examine all the root causes or whether this simplistic solution imposed on the community will really serve to better educate their kids. No, they are more concerned about words they deem "offensive." Its about results, folks. Wake up.

BrickTamland said:

Yeah, that's true. The losing side didn't have a South Orange Trustee actively intervening and browbeating the other candidates about inflammatory emails because he imagines himself a kingmaker in town now.

Browbeating? I can't wait to hear this.

Forget that part. I'm looking forward to the kingmaker explanation. That one oughta be good.

Wow. Just watched that clip.

I think Wayne Eastman handled it very well.


And I think it's time to defund the CCR.

Michael, can you make me the King of South Orange?

I got ideas.....

Imagine me, the King....

CrazyModerate said:

Michael, can you make me the King of South Orange?

I got ideas.....

Imagine me, the King....

You're too moderate or maybe it's that other thing ...

Michael

Had to.

)

It's good
to be the King!

If we're talking about individuals who potray a negative and derogatory image as it pertains to achieving academic achievement, let's call it that. That is NOT black culture. Yes, it can be individuals who do that who are black. It also can be individuals who do that who are white. Putting a label on an entire race is the problem.

This blows! Oh, am I correct in saying that, or is that a "white culture" way of putting it?

Thank you bklyntonj, that's exactly it.

Elspeth, I'm confused by your role here. From what I read, you live and work in another state and hate it here. Your knowledge of local events is from what source, I don't know. It's hard to see what your stake in all of this is, since these aren't academic discourses, but discussions of very, very local issues.

Could you enlighten me? The part that really puzzles me is why you linger when you dislike(d) it here so much.

sac said:

barry_badrinath said:

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?

It isn't an all or nothing thing, but from my observation, borderline kids are/were MUCH more likely to end up in the higher level if white and the lower level if black. And I know of several specific cases where non-white students who had all or mostly As were not put in level 4 until the parent went in and spoke to the administration (and sometimes had to do some significant arguing to get the change made.)

Then this is what should be addressed.

Improve evaluation and criteria for placement and make them transparent. Put controls in place to ensure objectivity. Audit it regularly to validate it's functioning properly. The wholesale deleveling approach throws the baby out with the bath water.

I felt that the winning slate, far from supporting an elitist/racist agenda, is capable of doing a better job at that kind of targeted, focused, root cause, fix it where it is broke approach.

I doubt that anyone in this community would be in support of maintaining this type of status quo and I'll gladly label as racist somebody who is.

I really am starting to believe, the real divide in this community is not between levelers and de-levelers; it's between those who understand the difference between correlation and causation and those who do not.

wnb said:

sac said:

barry_badrinath said:

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?

It isn't an all or nothing thing, but from my observation, borderline kids are/were MUCH more likely to end up in the higher level if white and the lower level if black. And I know of several specific cases where non-white students who had all or mostly As were not put in level 4 until the parent went in and spoke to the administration (and sometimes had to do some significant arguing to get the change made.)

Then this is what should be addressed.

Improve evaluation and criteria for placement and make them transparent. Put controls in place to ensure objectivity. Audit it regularly to validate it's functioning properly. The wholesale deleveling approach throws the baby out with the bath water.

I felt that the winning slate, far from supporting an elitist/racist agenda, is capable of doing a better job at that kind of targeted, focused, root cause, fix it where it is broke approach.

I doubt that anyone in this community would be in support of maintaining this type of status quo and I'll gladly label as racist somebody who is.

I really am starting to believe, the real divide in this community is not between levelers and de-levelers; it's between those who understand the difference between correlation and causation and those who do not.