Some citizens oppose integrating Eden Prairie schools, believing that racial integration [by proxy] won't benefit students.
EP's two newspapers both suggest a large bloc of parents supports busing-based integration, but opposes either plan that's on the table. To such parents, what would a better plan look like--assuming it results ...in the same degree of desegregation?
Were we to poll this group's 600+ members, what portion would simply oppose any intra-EP desegregation-by-busing--and what portion would support such busing, if linked to a better plan?
...and I received a pile of generally-friendly responses, even from people who--I think--know that I am not a team player.
Within the anti-plan 'resenter' camp, some members-in-good-standing oppose any family-income-based intra-Eden Prairie school desegregation, consistent with their belief that government policies at all levels should aspire to simple 'race-neutrality'. (They believe, as a consequence, that all race-based government affirmative action should be ruled unconstitutional.)
A pillar of 'the resenter narrative' consists of innuendo slamming the [supposed ultrashrew] superintendent and various school board members: In sending their own children to the lily-white Spanish Immersion School--they act upon the snooty liberal wont for preening--while foisting all actual costs upon others.
The resenters would come across better were they to drop the 'conflict of interest' allegations: A more intelligent, uplifting community discussion will occur if we just assume the good citizenship of all participants.
I favor the plan because I sense it includes actual school desegregation--which I view as a moral good, independent of whether it accomplishes academic improvement.
Having read Sheila's fire-breathing anti-Krull rhetoric for months, I assumed an omnipotent, evil-spewing Melissa Krull could not exist.
And then--during my first ten minutes in the same room with Melissa Krull--she did something quite yucky: Krull publicly, pointedly refused to distance herself one centimeter from a high-status participant who publicly calls her opponents--without qualification--racists.
Even as a supporter of busing, I couldn't stand by someone who calls all plan opponents racists. Such a charge demands convincing evidence--which has not been provided. Why then did Krull feel the need to thrust the shiv so, with her 'refusal to disavow'--even when she knows at least some opposition to the plan stems from motives not based in racism?
Krull's moral buy-in with Team Purity requires her not merely to detect some racism among opponents, but to 'model' what she deems 'the morally proper public stance'--fulfilling one's Team Purity obligation, doing one's part to stigmatize opposition to progressive race policies.
On the left--having analyzed the situation and decided, 'The resenters are at least somewhat motivated by racism'--the Pure subconsciously seek to increase the pleasure-inducing dosage, converting their vague hunch into 'The resenters are primarily motivated by racism.' (Such an ideological move should require explanation. imho.)
During the Civil Rights Movement, genuine racists often cloaked squalid objectives within 'appeals for race-neutrality'; present-day liberals shouldn't rely on this historical fact 'to prove' today's advocates of 'race-neutrality' are themselves racists:
Equivalent evidence is not evidence of equivalence, and the situations--in Selma and Eden Prairie--are dissimilar.
Thanks B--I'm happy to receive your feedback.
I will remind Lora that--in inviting me to the tour, she is responsible for making such arrangements, which I of course assumed to be part of the package from the get-go.
I'm aware that I am not well-versed in the plan's minutiae--and that it packages many changes, in the manner that large-organizational policies often get promulgated--as parties trade horses.
But this debate is perceived as being unusually charged for essentially one reason. While many on this list dispute my assertion (in a tone redolent of orthodoxy) I believe that if you pull people aside, you find the desegregation plan packs the most emotional punch, among the plan's various components.
To say so is not to claim that the dispute pits Martin Luther King against the KKK--it is merely to attempt to ground the public discussion in reality.