Brave hopeful announces "support:" The topic arrived on the front page of this morning's New York Times.
We refer to the busing program introduced in the Berkeley Public Schools in 1968.
Years later, a little girl numbered among the bused—one who finds many comments hurtful—would announce that, even today, she "support[s] busing as a method for school integration," though "the campaign declined to provide additional information."
Those early statements were rather murky. But so it goes when a failing nation keeps getting conned by the slick and the bused.
Our failing nation keeps getting conned by both the woke and the dumb. Along that same general line, consider one part of today's front-page report.
The report was written by Nellie Bowles, a youngish, well-regarded reporter whose background lies in technology reporting, not in reporting about public schools (Columbia, class of 2010.)
Silicon Valley lies close to Berkeley; perhaps for that reason, the Times gave Bowles the assignment. In no way is this the fault or the doing of Bowles, but the Times has never seemed to regard education as a specialty requiring specialized knowledge.
Bowles' front-page report runs almost 2000 words. Early on, she has some trouble explaining the classic distinction between de jure and de facto "segregation" in the public schools.
Eventually, though—in paragraph 41!—Bowles drops a bit of a bomb. If you read all the way to the end of today's report, you finally get to read this:
BOWLES (7/1/19): Berkeley voted to phase out its original busing program in 1994, but still has integration initiatives in place. Busing has largely been seen as a failed effort: Across the country today, schools are still segregated, and the number of intensely segregated schools is growing."Busing has largely been seen as a failed effort," Bowles says, 1800 words in. And how odd! She says Berkeley "still has integration initiatives in place," but she seems to say that busing isn't numbered among them!
Is it true that busing, even when voluntary, has come to be seen as a failed effort? That would be interesting if true, because elsewhere in the New York Times, we'd already seemed to learn that the candidate who finds so many statements so hurtful still supports the practice today!
("After her exchange with Mr. Biden on Thursday night, a Harris spokesman said that she supported busing as a method for school integration, but the campaign declined to provide additional information." So wrote the New York Times' Astead Herndon in this earlier news report.)
Those early statements declaring "support" for busing were perhaps a tiny bit vague. Last night, though, it finally happened! Candidate Hurtful began to pretend to flesh out her brave bold stand herself.
After trashing Candidate Biden, the hopeful has finally begun to flesh out her own stand. Last evening, she said and tweeted this:
CANDIDATE HARRIS (6/30/19): I support busing. Listen, the schools of America are as segregated, if not more segregated, today than when I was in elementary school. And we need to put every effort, including busing, into play to desegregate the schools.There's more to what the hopeful said; you can read her fuller statement here. Quickly, though, a bit of clarification:
Everyone, including the floundering Biden, "supports busing" in the general, basically meaningless sense contained in that first part of Harris' remarks. If some community somewhere decided to use busing to "desegregate" its public schools, no Democratic politician would ever object.
Harris went on to say that the federal government "has a role to play in ensuring equality." But when it comes to busing and schools, she absent-mindedly forgot to say just what that role actually is!
Our question would be this:
What does Candidate Harris actually propose as she takes her brave stand? It's been a long time since the federal government ordered school districts to bus kids around for this type of purpose. So what exactly is Harris proposing? And why won't this bravest of pols simply describe her bold stand?
Candidate Harris is sufficiently woke to tell us that the public schools are even more "segregated" now than they were back in the day. With that in mind, we'd love to know why she hasn't advanced some brave, important busing proposals before this point in time.
Our guess on that would be simple—the candidate has no such proposals, and is perhaps involved in a tiny small bit of a fraud. For ourselves, we're sick of putting up with this kind of mess, and anthropologists largely support us.
Yesterday, we spent a chunk of time reading comments on-line (click for reader comments here). We were struck by how tragically woke so many of our political teammates are—so woke, and yet so uninformed and perhaps just a tiny bit dumb.
Often confused, but never in doubt! So their comments seemed.
Our vastly self-impressed liberal team has been playing this way for a very long time. Future experts huddled in caves have told us this didn't end well.
Tomorrow: Uh-oh! What Willie Brown instantly said