Who has done that? You’re the only one who is even emphasizing his race! If you think the opinions expressed here (minus yours, of course) would be any different if the superintendent was white instead of black, I’m interested in hearing what you think they would be like. I’m thinking he’d be “pre-cast” the same way.
OK, you with the face, just to be clear: now that you have read additional articles where the superintendent discuss the GPA/ rank issue, you are satisfied that the school’s decision is probably not racist?
No, it does not. It presumes that both parties in this dispute have reasons for lying or distorting the situation, and does not give precedence to one part over the other simply because one of them has a more sympathetic story.
Note also, please, that you are also discounting the story offered by the school administration, who presumably also knows more about the situation than you do. If I’m in the wrong for doubting the accusation, you’re equally in the wrong for believing them. There’s no hard evidence (that’s available to any of us in this thread) to judge this case. All we can do is weight the claims likelihood based on our own experiences and observations. Or take a completely neutral stance, without offering an opinion one way or the other, until we have access to enough facts to make a determination - which is probably the wisest approach, but it would make for a very short thread.
Sure. I believe I’ve admitted it a couple of times in this thread. It’s entirely possible that the plaintiff’s accusations are 100% accurate and the law suit is entirely justified. It just seems to me to be the less likely of the options available, based on the evidence I have at hand. This is not an extraordinary position to take. As I pointed out above, it’s exactly what you are doing in this thread, except you’re landing on the other side of the dispute.
You know, I honestly don’t think that you do.
And this is distinct from what you’re doing in what way, exactly?
If I were in that situation, absolutely the last thing I’d expect a perfect stranger to do is take me at my word over what happened. In the interests of basic civility, I wouldn’t expect them to get up in my face about it, as you’ve described here, because that would be pretty rude. But I certainly would not expect them to start treating the people I’ve accused like a bunch of homophobes, simply because of my entirely unsubstantiated accusation.
I love it when you hang off my every word, looking for validation.
Here is what I wrote waaaaaay back in post 88.
Does this not sound like a reasonable position to you? It didn’t stop you from running around like a rabid beaver with its head cut off, but anyone who is literate can see that I’m not convinced racism is involved. I don’t know that it isn’t though. This is what skepticism looks like, people.
Read my last post to Rand. I’ve never come out strongly in favor of one position. I suspect yall just assumed otherwise because I criticised the knee-jerk denials going on in this thread.
By the way, I’m still reeling over you proclaiming her status as teen mom was a reasonable criterion for denying her this recognition. That right there actually shows your lack of objectivity. It was like you went into crazy Just World mode in a desperate attempt to find something–anything–to explain why she deserved to not be recognized as validictorian. And it hasn’t yet dawned on you what this would socially conservatism at its finest and ugliest.
Would you expect them to doubt you out of hand, though? Because that’s exactly what you did.
If the superintendent were white instead of black, I think it would be seen as conclusive evidence of top-down racial discrimination against the student. So yes, I think the opinions would be different because people are less likely to assume a racist motivation if the person in power is the same race as the alleged victim, and are more likely to consider other motives like “politics.”
This isn’t really a controversial idea, is it?
By whom? You and other skeptics in this thread who think the superintendent’s race means something when it comes to evaluating an allegation like this?
Anyway, you’re wrong. If the white superintendent was white, his race wouldn’t even be under discussion. If you doubt me, count how many times in this thread we’ve talked about the race of the principal and the guidance counselor. If it’s been mentioned at all, I must have missed it.
The reason the superintendent’s race has been discussed is KW names him as a defendent in her racism suit and he is black. Doesn’t it strike an odd note? If he were white, his race wouldn’t be mentioned because hey, no odd note.
Actually, I just flat-out had you confused with monstro, and was attributing to you positions she had taken. Sorry about that.
I’m… not entirely following what you’re saying in this paragraph. I do think that social conservatives are right about teenaged pregnancy being a bad thing. I disagree pretty sharply with them about what should be done to prevent it, and what should be done after it happens, but I do think it’s very irresponsible to have a kid when you’re fifteen or sixteen, and I don’t have a problem with a school considering character in addition to academic success when choosing a valedictorian. I don’t have any personal objection to a teenaged mother being named valedictorian, but I do applaud schools attempting to do something about the problem, and this would, at least, be a lot less stupid then other approaches they could take.
But I wasn’t desperate for a reason for this not to be racist in origin. I’d be perfectly content with leaving it up to “I bet there’s more to this story than we’re hearing,” because I don’t find the initial claim to be credible.
If my claim were particularly outrageous, yes, I would. If I claimed that this guy had discriminated against me for being gay, I’d expect them to laugh in my face.
The original claim in this situation wasn’t quite as unbelievable as that, but the idea that someone could be that overtly racist, and make it through a beaurecracy as media-sensitive as the public school system long enough to rise to his current position, without already doing something outrageous enough to get himself fired or shuffled off into a sinecure somewhere did not seem likely. A parent freaking out and leveling outrageous accusations because someone slighted her precious snowflake, on the other hand, I can *very *easily believe.
And the facts seem to have born that out.
Exactly.
I find your line of argument a bit baffling, ywtf. This entire discussion has focused on race. Wimberly made specific accusations of racism, and many posters in this thread stated their belief that racism was at least a secondary, if not the primary, motivating factor for naming a second (white) co-valedictorian. Yet you insist that the race of one of the primary actors—the superintendent in charge, no less—is irrelevant, and imply that it’s illogical for me to even mention it.
It’s difficult to believe you really believe this, but if so, we’ll have to agree to strongly disagree.
It’s a detail that was mentioned in the press, because reporters apparently think it adds something to the story even though it really doesn’t. Black cops get accused of racial profiling too. These accusations aren’t any less credible if there’s evidence to substantiate the claim.
Just because the press tells you something doesn’t mean it should change your analysis. It’s called critical thinking, yall. The school district isn’t dumb, either. What better way to assure the public that all is on the up and up than to have the black superintendent standing on the frontline of this controversy. For an issue as minor as who gets named valedictorian at a high school, you have a district-level official doing press conferences and damage control. Not the principal, mind you, who has authority over the school and is responsible for day-to-day decisionmaking. But the superintendent of the entire K thru 12 school district is the PR frontman for this tempest in a teapot. If anything strikes me as odd, it’s that. But he’s black, so I’m not surprised.
It’s a bad thing only because teenage parents as a group are too young to develop themselves into productive adults and raise children at the same time. It’s not a crime against morality though. It’s not a sign of poor character that is related to academic performance, like cheating on tests would be. Penalizing Wimberly for having a baby would be much like giving her scarlet letter. And why? Because she had sex and didn’t have an abortion? That’s the message you’d be sending to kids.
“Girls, it’s okay if you have sex because there’s no visible evidence of it so you always have plausible deniability, but if you get knocked up, you better have an abortion. If you don’t, everyone will know how bad of a person you are.”
And what about the boys? Sexist much?
I have my doubts actually. If you think withholding academic recognition from a teenage mother is a signal that a school should be sending, then I don’t see how your opinions on prevention are any different from the most fascist of social conservatives, to be honest. This idea is like something straight out of their playbook. Slut shaming and all of that.
As soon as you learned that she was a teenage mom, you glommed on to that as being the reason that she was denied the sole honor as val. Why? The plaintiff didn’t allege that this was the reason. And neither did the school. It was just a theory that that struck you as both more likely as well as reasonably justifiable. No evidence for it whatsover, though.
Sorry, but this is not what skepticism looks like. A skeptic withholds judgement until they see more evidence. A naysayer, in contrast, looks at a claim, searches for an alternative explanation, and starts putting faith in those alternative explanations–even if they have as much evidence to support the alternatives than they do the primary claim. And even if that alternatives are crazy. Like Rand early on insisting that the Wimberly might be justified in not being the sole val because her mother was employed by the school. Does this make any sense? It’s theory that is desperate on its face.
Her claim isn’t outrageous. Certainly not anymore outrageous than “she’s a teenage mom and therefore shouldn’t be named the valedictorian!” But that didn’t stop you from believing in that one, though. Right?
I’m still not clear on why the extra half credit bumps her up a notch. If we go with a baseball analogy, she had .5 more at-bats but still came out with a lower batting percentage.
I’m not particularly surprised that the superintendent of the school district- who is a named defendent and was contacted by the press- is speaking on the matter of a lawsuit in federal court. Bonus for the school district that he is also black. I would find it weird if they grabbed random black person and shoved them in front of the press. “Here is our secretary, clearly telling you vultures we are not racists!!!” The superintendent has said that since he signed.off on it it was ultimately his decision. So it makes perfect sense to me that he is at the forefront.
It seems to me that there are two issues at hand.
The first is that teenagers are getting pregnant. This is a bad thing, and should be discouraged. Honoring Ms. Wimberly would not support this particular agenda.
The second is that teenage mothers are dropping out of school. This too is a bad thing, and should be discouraged. In this case, however, Ms. Wimberly is the poster girl for success, and should be honored for showing the world that you don’t have to quit school.
So - she did one good thing, and one bad thing. IMHO, these two factors should nullify each other, and the valedictorian honors should simply be given to the kid with the best grades.
Ywtf, don’t you realize that you are doing the same thing to me and Miller that you accused us of doing to you? That is, you said we unfairly characterized your position as a strong “That’s racist!” when really you weren’t saying that, but you are characterizing our positions as saying the decision may have been justified for the parent staffer or teen pregnancy reasons. We aren’t saying that. We are just saying that that could have been the “big mess” and could be why they named a co-val, not that the school would be justified in doing so. We both presented what we did as alternative theories to explain the school’s actions, not as reasons why the school’s action might be a good thing. That is completely in line with a skeptical postion. All I ever said is that there is no reason to presume racism and there are several alternative explanations, not that those alternative explanations are actually true or would be a good thing if true.
Also, I apologize if I lumped you in with monstro as presenting some monolithic “that’s racist!” position. (But, at the same time, you did make some early posts in this thread that leaned in that direction more than in a neutral skeptical direction.)
I just hope that the knee-jerk “that’s racist!” people can take a lesson from this, but somehow I seriously doubt that will happen. They’ll use this incident to further cement their belief that racism is everywhere, thus making them think that other incidents involve racism, thus further cementing their belief.
And the principal is white, and the school board is predominantly white. Their races have not been overly discussed, at least not here, probably because a black person accusing white people of anti black bias doesn’t strike anyone as particularly unusual. The press told us these facts, and I would think critical thinking would incorporate or at least acknowledge facts. shouldn’t facts be taken into consideration when discussing an issue?
I take it that you’ve never been appointed the spokeperson for your race, simply by being the only minority around. If not, you should consider yourself lucky but also naive.
So you honestly believe he has no business being front and center? And That I am naive for understanding why the Guy in Charge is answering the press? Regarding the somewhat significant lawsuit alleging 14th amendment violations filed against the school district?
According to the latest article I’ve read, the lawsuit names the district, its directors, the superintendent and Principal Darrell Thompson as defendants. It doesn’t even sound like the superintendent is even the highest official on the hit-list here. He is one of several being named in this suit.
So let’s say all of these defendants in this case are white except him. Up and down the chain there are whites, except the black superintendent. Are we really supposed to overlook at that whiteness and focus on his race. Really? That sounds like exactly what the district is hoping people would do. But that’s no reason to go for the okeydoke like a gullible idiot.
The evidence, not the race of the administrators, should be the only thing that counts here.