It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

Dude....when you just got harassed like that for a minor infraction, don't drive away while filming yourself, which is a serious dangerous crime akin to driving drunk.

I was stopped as a mohawked teenager in Palo Alto for being "suspicious" by taking two minutes to drop my girlfriend off at her house, and ten minutes later across town I was surrounded by 11-12 cop cars, lights on, and 18+- police who detained me for 45 minutes but had nothing to charge me with. Compared to that, this seemed benign (don't get me wrong, I see this as a blatant racist action, the message being "you don't belong here, boy", but I expected much worse).

seeing the discussion between bob and newt reminds me of this george will observation about d.j. dimwit's tweeting...

"He has an advantage on me, he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters, and I can't."

b.k.'s "..a distant fear that never occurred." was a sign to stop. akin to "road out ahead". but being adventurous, forged ahead to see how big the gap was.

give this one to newt. there was a gully washer in bob's neck o' woods

here's an insightful observation...

One good phrase or political catchword is worth more to him than cartloads of dry exposition and theory. A catchword gives the unthinking mob not only the material for an idea, but also furnishes them with the pleasant illusion that they are thinking themselves.

source material: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02646R000100030002-2.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Epstein

Epstein has an adversarial relationship with Google since they flagged his website for hosting malware, something he admits was true, but still threatened to sue them for warning others instead of just fixing his personal website for free.

Many of his claims have proven to be false, like his claim Google swayed the election for Clinton, handing her 3000000 votes.

The Los Angeles Times reported in March 2019 that Epstein's criticism of Google had been "warmly embraced" by conservative sources, a phenomenon that Epstein said "is driving me crazy".

This is akin to Trump complaining Facebook is censoring conservatives because they purged Russian trolls and bots.

It's an extreme solution certainly, but not without merit. I doubt there'd ever be a willing acceptance of such a plan though, so a slightly more realistic solution would need to be moderated some. How's this for dystopian-but-not-quite-genocidal:
Worldwide lottery, a small percentage (total of 500M - 1B maybe) wins the right to live in what will be the new model of the world: something like what we have now, but with drastically reduced usage of non-renewable resources (until they can be replaced completely) and a target of zero negative impact on the environment as a whole. Still some version of democratic (generally at least), freedom of whatnot and such, open travel to the degree that sustainable transportation options allow, all the (again, sustainable) mod cons. I suppose different countries / regions could still run things according to their preferences, as long as the net-zero goal remains.
The other lottery entrants, the non-winners, don't need to die, hooray! They will however live on something akin to reservations, as serfs, without the right to further reproduce. These poor bastards, in exchange for not being outright murdered to save civilization, are to be consolidated into agricultural communes to do whatever they can to regrow the world's flora and fauna until they all eventually die. Their goal is not net-zero, but as far into the positive as possible. It would all be overseen according to some grand scheme(s) to be as beneficial for the overall future of humanity and life on Earth in general as possible.

Probably also unworkable, but preferable to megamurder?

@bobknight33, you know posting divisive and derisive propaganda like this is akin to marching with your tiki torch chanting "the Jews will not replace us", right?
Where are these "good people" that are allegedly on your side? All I ever see are these certifiably insane provocateurs the right loves to cheer on and get behind.

The new lower standard....which was exponentially higher than the standard set by either the previous or subsequent president?
Do you not know how lowering standards works? To set a new low, you have to be worse than others.

8 years and Obama never had to hire a lawyer, not one indictment with the republicans frothing at the mouth daily over....well, obviously nothing, for all 8 years.
Trump, at 1.8 years in had 89 indictments and already 24 convictions (more now, 36 guilty pleas for Republican Mueller's investigation alone) with Republicans in FULL CONTROL (and he still couldn't get wall funding, Muslim bans, or kill the ACA, and barely even got his deficit exploding tax cut for millionaires).
Bush had 16 indictments, all convictions, and until Trump was considered our dumbest, most incompetent president...not anymore.

Every time you spout this kind of asinine brain dead stupidity, I will be here to save you with some fact. Claiming Obama set a new low standard means you have absolutely no grasp on reality, as it's simply embarrassingly wrong and easy to debunk factually. By every standard imaginable (morally, ethically, in civility, rationality, directionality, ability, honesty, FIDELITY, respect, etc.) he was and remains not just head and shoulders above Trump, he's miles above Trump and well above W.

It's very sad your baseless irrational hatred taints your viewpoint so thoroughly you would think that nonsense would fly....but since you just proudly flew a Q flag there, it's clear you're too far gone for fact or history to matter a whit.
Q=batshit crazy conspiracy nuts akin to flat earthers and breathairians, 100% worthy of shunning before they pull out a gun in your pizza place looking for child sex slaves, illuminati, and lizard people.
Just when I think you can't sink lower, you surprise me every time.

Btw, thanks to numerous states making releasing your tax returns mandatory to be on the ballot, Trump's 2020 chances are quickly becoming slim to none....hard to win if you aren't on the ballot, harder to win when it's shown you're a complete fraud and tax cheat.

Provide free cab service to anyone blowing over legal limit.

No public street parking within 5 blocks of a bar, after daylight hours. Free valet parking, although you have to blow clean to get your car back.

Make drunk driving akin to attempted murder. At least depraved indifference.

It's great that you're raising your kids to be respectful of others.

But I don't understand the "judging" comment. Are you saying I shouldn't judge people for violent behaviour or harassment?

And yes, it is akin to saying Muslims should condemn violent behaviour done in the name of their religion (and to be clear, most Muslims DO condemn that behaviour).

I don't think this ad portrays all men as abusers, but it does portray all men as complicit by not speaking out, and I agree with that. We haven't done enough and it is our responsibility. "If you see something, say something" would do far more good in calling out shitty behaviour to other people than in the tiny % of terrorist acts.

People like this, Bob, most of my family, and most Trump supporters are why I hate Christianity. It shows just how full of hate they are. I love them as people, but I hate everything about them... this of course is exactly what they say about the gays. They don't hate them, they just hate their sin... not that they are sin free themselves, but they'll ignore that. Anyhow, they'll say "hate the sin, love the sinner" but don't understand how hating everything about a person doesn't show the love of Christ. Christ spent His ministry hanging out with the very sinners that most Christians today try to separate themselves from and react with vile towards. They act like the Pharisees that Christ spoke out against, and are the main reason people are turned off the faith... they are doing more harm than good. And in the end, that's probably a good thing. Let them show how full of hate Christianity is, how they don't actually love the way Christ said to love, and more and more people will leave their faith, then perhaps we'll start to make some progress in this world towards a true loving society that is more akin to the one Christ preached.

But can you blame 'all' of the problem on Bush/Obama?

I can recall many changes in the 80's from Reagan, huge cuts to school lunch programs, and many attempts to either reduce or totally eliminate the Department of Education.

In 89, Bush Sr. and the Governors of 'every' state held a summit, where they developed some of the first goals for future changes to education. These included some of the first recommended changes to standards-based education.

During both of Clinton's terms they steamed ahead at full speed on these goals, leading to massive changes forcing standards-based education. They implemented ESEA, which was succeeded by the two later programs you mentioned.

So we clearly can't pin it to just one group, as both led the charge at one point or another. This is what I meant by my statement. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives can point a finger and say, "Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand?" They both grasped it and wielded it.

So, now as you mention, we have a climate which puts incredible importance on standardized testing. Because of this, and how the schools are funded, students are basically learning how to pass a test based on minimum standards as set by the government. Students aren't taught what they 'can' learn, but what the government thinks they 'should' learn.

I graduated in 1992, so I missed the true first wave of standardized tests. But if I had not been, I know I would have been *incredibly* frustrated at being forced to learn at a slower pace because all students needed to pass. I can almost guarantee I would have acted out, become more of a clown and troublemaker than I actually was in school, because I would have been bored to tears.

As you mention also, we have a highly media based group of children today. I agree cell phones should be not be allowed.

As far as the publishers, perhaps it is less than noble to prey upon the environment that we have currently. I can't blame them, however, because it would be akin to blaming cell phone makers for making products that children want for connectivity to social media. Like any company, they are in it for a profit. It just happens to be that currently the profit is more in tests than innovative learning tools/textbooks. They are simply doing what they have to do, like any corporation. I'm sure a lot of that includes lobbying to keep standards based education in place.

We can blame a lot of different groups, even parents. But that isn't solving the issue. I have my ideas of how to begin fixing it, which may differ from yours because I am not in the 'business' nor do I have children. I would say the following would be some baseline changes I would implement or suggest:

1. School Uniforms - It makes it harder to differentiate between children and helps against the forming of cliques.

2. A complete 180 from standards based education.

3. We have to invest more money into hiring more teachers. Smaller classes means less stress, more personal interaction, and more time for the teacher to be aware of 'problems' before they blow up.

4. Students should only be allowed to access devices owned by the school, ones that are for education and not instagram. What they have available before and after school is on their parents, but they shouldn't have it in class.

5. I will probably take some flack, but I do believe that vouchers should be allowed versus forced public school attendance. Forcing people who cannot afford private schooling to send their children to public education means you remove choice of the quality of learning. Once public schools start to even out in quality due to the aforementioned changes, then we can remove vouchers.

I understand if you dislocate enough, it starts to happen fairly easily and is roughly akin to cracking your knuckles to place it back.

Bill didn't repeatedly grab pussies against their will, or go on to brag about it...and he was impeached over the consensual sex he did have....and it was a problem for me, such infidelity coming from my president proves he's disloyal...and the cigar thing...WTF?!

Doesn't make him moral by far, but there's a huge difference between cheating on your wife by having consensual (oral) sex and cheating on all of your wives by raping your friends' wives, assaulting numerous co workers, paying porn stars, paying prostitutes, pressuring beauty pageant contestants, and likely raping your own daughter.

Get a grip, he's an admitted abuser, philanderer, and clearly has no respect for women or marriage, and his concept of loyalty goes one way, he's loyal to nothing.

Also whataboutism is akin to no defense at all, and is just plain dumb when your comparisons are 1/10 as bad as what you're trying to distract from.

There is plenty of employment law that says that there is an objective correct answer.

It is very frustrating to get into the conversation over and over again, meet the intellectual points with reason, and be dismissed.

Until men -- and they are mostly men -- step up to the plate and acknowledge that their biological responses are a problem that relegate women to pieces of meat for their pleasure, this will never be addressed in a way that lets us move forward.

It is akin to racism. I'm a racist. I have racist responses that are a combination of what I was brought up with (thanks, dad) and are part and parcel of how human's brains evolved.

We evolved to quickly see difference.

Helped us survive, that lightning quick assessment.

But racism is purely BELIEVING that lizard brain reaction is based in something real and should be given precedence over the frontal cortex.

Racism and sexism are related. They put lizard brain over the frontal cortex.

Just because you feel it doesn't mean it should be indulged.

And there is plenty of equal opportunity laws on the books to say that subjective racist responses, while endemic in humanity, shall not be allowed in a modern society.

We are struggling as humans to rise above the muck of biology. Wanna join me?