Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Implicit Bias category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Implicit Bias’ Category

Before he jumped into the race, Joe Biden’s Democrat presidential challengers brought up his history of his inappropriate (and creepy) touching of women of all ages. As quickly as it started, though, it died down. That’s unfortunate. Joe Biden is a creepy old white man.

As sad as Biden’s creepy touchy habits are, that isn’t his worst character defect. This article highlights Joe Biden’s worst character defect.

Never willing to let a good race-baiting opportunity go to was, “former Vice President Joe Biden rang the alarm that ‘Jim Crow is sneaking back’ at a campaign rally in South Carolina, the south’s first primary state that is seen as key to clinching the Democratic nomination.” This isn’t surprising, just disgusting and repetitive. Joe Biden has been doing this for years. Here’s another instance of Biden playing the race-baiting card:

Simply put, Biden is both a race-baiter and a pervert. It’s time that sensible Democrats rejected this type of campaigning. That’s if sensible Democrats still exist. Then there’s this:

On systemic racism, Biden gave the example that if two men named “Jamal” and “John” applied for the same job, “John” would easily get the gig.

I’m tired of hearing this crap. That sounds like something another old white Democrat (Mark Dayton) said.

Biden held a campaign rally Saturday in Columbia, the Palmetto State’s capital and home to the University of South Carolina. Bidden added to his usual fighting-for-the-middle-class stump speech by calling for protecting voting rights and ending “systemic racism.” Biden cited numerous states’ voting laws which he said are “mostly directed at people of color.”

Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams tried playing that race card, too. They almost won. Neither race should’ve been close. Apparently, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to race-baiting:

It’s sickening to see Democrats pandering to Al Sharpton, aka Tawana Brawley’s co-conspirator. While it’s sickening, it isn’t surprising.

A chill ran through me when I read this article. What’s frightening is that this program is built on the theory that disparities in discipline are based in racism. This isn’t just wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s political correctness gone too far.

Paul Sperry’s investigation lies at the heart of this potential crisis. Sperry’s investigation into the PROMISE Program revealed that “Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient. Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence.”

Whether the Minnesota program is called the PROMISE Program or not, the guiding principles are virtually identical. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights “announced 43 districts have suspension and expulsion disparities that violate the state Human Rights Act ‘because they deny students of color and students with disabilities educational access and negatively impact academic achievement.'”

What’s required is a discipline system that outlines each district’s behavioral expectations. Penalizing schools for disciplining students of color based on quotas is dangerous. Disciplining schools based on legitimate racism is one thing. Disciplining schools based on liberal fantasies like implicit bias and white privilege is dangerous. Either a student isn’t behaving or he/she is. The color of their skin, their ethnic background or their country of origin is utterly irrelevant.

This statement is frightening:

“Studies have proven that higher rates of school suspensions and expulsions among students of color and students with disabilities can have lasting negative impacts in their lives and education. That is why the (department) takes seriously any allegation or evidence that indicate disciplinary measures are falling disproportionately upon children of color and students with disabilities in our schools. It is our responsibility to fully review such allegations, and work with local school officials to ensure equal treatment under the law for all kids.”

According to this article, the federal directive was “issued jointly in 2014 by the US departments of Education and Justice” and “warned public school districts receiving federal funding and that they could face investigation and funding cuts if they fail to reduce statistical ‘disparities’ in discipline by race.”

This isn’t proof of racism. Again, school districts have the right to expect proper behavior. Period. If students of color are getting disciplined more often, perhaps the remedy is to insist that students of color improve their behavior. In the system described by Commissioner Lindsey, what criteria is his department using in determining who gets investigated?

For more information on this subject, check out Heather MacDonald’s article.