Wednesday, February 26, 2014

STATEMENT



I am often a creature of habit and as such one of the first things I do in the morning after my breakfast and reading two of my daily, for lack of a better term, newspapers; is to go to my desktop computer open and scan my email before going to my bookmarks and either opening Dan Damon’s Clips or if that date's is not yet on line; I check Bernice’s and David Rutherford’s blog sites.


Today was different. As you may have read that in my dotage a new member has joined my family. At present he is placing demands upon my time that I am sure will be minimal and routine within a few weeks if that long.


Up to now there has been a great deal of uncertainty and disruption in Dawg's short two years but he is coping better than expected as long as does not have to worry about his “daily three squares” and knows that my bed is soft. Already his anxiety state is lessened when I go out for a few minutes.


But I do digress from the subject matter at hand. Because of play sessions amongst other morning related activities with Dawg including trying to button his coat, I abandoned my usual routine and was not aware of David Rutherford’s critical blog until a mid-morning call from a dear friend. It was still later when I did read it.


Of course I did read it and suffice to say it deserves rebuttal. However under present circumstances that may be delayed for a few days in as much as it is obvious that he has completely misinterpreted my February 14 blog “APARTHEID???”.


I want to be sure that, if possible, I can clarify some of his confusion. I did not think that I was to use his words “coming at” him, but rather addressing a specific but broad topic.


On the other hand, I take umbrage at be accused of employing “the tacky maneuver of quoting me before adding his response” (his words). I believe that my comments were peculiarly related to definitive subjects and could be meaningless or even ranting without the presence of the references.


I will ASAP try to elucidate what I believe I was being explicit in each of my commentaries. In the meantime, David please believe that I was not faulting you.


By the way I have read all 25 pages of the Rutgers’s Report.

5 comments:

  1. Enjoy the Dawg Doc!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is exposure to white students a more important factor in education than exposure to concentrated poverty?

    What has been the impact of new educational programs designed for minorities? Should urban districts have the right to implement the curriculum of any high performing district in the state?

    There are solutions, but racial integration is a failed strategy that distracts from other causes and options.

    Most African Americans are not even aware that the word Apartheid is currently being used by critics of Israel. As such it is inflammatory, misleading and does a disservice to the data and the need for a constructive dialog.

    As a community that needs to work together to solve the problems of public school education, we should invite the authors of the Apartheid Schools study to Plainfield, in order to discuss their research and our concerns.

    This isn't about any of our historic baggage. Getting angry at each other isn't going to improve the situation.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Deorah, As for myself I am not angry at David. I am angry about the bastardization of the term Apartheid as its has been used in this study and is being used as an inflammatory tool against Israel.

    By using that term in discussing the poor performances of school districts with Large black/Latino student bodies and minimal white the focus has been appeared to be wrongly place on racial not economic issues.

    The education problem should not be addressed with a term that is associated with racial discrimination.

    When Dawg permits I intend to expound on the subject.




    ReplyDelete
  4. I have yet to find a single African American researcher among the people who did the Apartheid School study
    .
    Here is a link to their bios, prior publications academic credentials and photos.
    http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/about-us/staff/gary-orfield-ph.d

    or you can just google their names. They should be challenged.

    Greg Flaxman

    John Kucsera

    Gary Orfield

    Jennifer Ayescue

    Genevieve Siegel-Hawley

    Ms. Ayescue could be a Latina

    The study and responses made me feel that black people were being used for a hidden agenda and attacked.

    The history of racial discrimination in education is an established fact, but the use of this term does not inform the discussion and appears to be a manipulation by people with an ax to grind on the other side of the world.

    Was this even intended to help the students mentioned in the study?

    ReplyDelete
  5. So many continue to blame the system instead of the failure of the family unit for the disproportionate Latino students. Heck, Doc, they even blame you.

    ReplyDelete