Comparing Rich with Poor: Moral Bankruptcy

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

 

[Foxfyre]

One bump

 

[Disir]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

 

[Disir]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

But poor kids, especially, have just one time, during their school years, to equip their minds with math, science and other solid skills that will give them a shot at a better life.

To squander their time on rap sessions and navel-gazing is unconscionable.

Yes, of course Britpat, I can see how pretending that there is no inequality, which is something that the kids from the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder know very , is absolutely harmful. In fact, it might lead to overthrowing your Koch-whoring Gestapo behind. That's what truly scares the crap out of folks like you. When you have a wealthier kid make statements about social justice, you get a little scared.

 

[Meathead]

Didn't take this thread long to degenerate. Great minds...

 

[sameech]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

This article troubles me, but not in the way it might appear. The cultural narrative has changed in a bad way. Instead of enabling success, we are justifying the lack of it. The kid talking about how he was unfairly advantaged because he did not suffer the ill effects of life that other kids had is just such a wrong message. Maybe instead if vilifying people who have had more opportunities, we should strive more to create opportunities for those who don't enjoy such instead of indoctrinating people with this "Anybody who is successful has unfair advantages" nonsense.

Sowell is a smart guy. He just plays the roll that gets him what he wants--money....oh excuse me, "unfair advantages" I should have said.

 

[Foxfyre]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

But poor kids, especially, have just one time, during their school years, to equip their minds with math, science and other solid skills that will give them a shot at a better life.

To squander their time on rap sessions and navel-gazing is unconscionable.

Yes, of course Britpat, I can see how pretending that there is no inequality, which is something that the kids from the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder know very , is absolutely harmful. In fact, it might lead to overthrowing your Koch-whoring Gestapo behind. That's what truly scares the crap out of folks like you. When you have a wealthier kid make statements about social justice, you get a little scared.

How about we focus on the concept presented instead of throwing out partisan insulting characterizations for a start? Thanks. I knew you would understand.

Sowell did NOT pretend in any way that there is no equality. He was quite explicit that the inequality was obvious, even glaring, to the point that the less advantaged kids were completely demoralized. And I think his point was that this is not only cruel in creating class envy in the kids, but he was expressing how futile such a program is. He brought to light that the 'moral bankruptcy' was in wasting time in that way and calling it education when the emphasis should be on providing the poor kids the basics that could actually change their lives; actually equip them to pull themselves out of their current circumstances.

 

[JakeStarkey]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

How funny from the running dog of the commies. Still quoting commie drivel from WHO?

 

[Foxfyre]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

This article troubles me, but not in the way it might appear. The cultural narrative has changed in a bad way. Instead of enabling success, we are justifying the lack of it. The kid talking about how he was unfairly advantaged because he did not suffer the ill effects of life that other kids had is just such a wrong message. Maybe instead if vilifying people who have had more opportunities, we should strive more to create opportunities for those who don't enjoy such instead of indoctrinating people with this "Anybody who is successful has unfair advantages" nonsense.

Sowell is a smart guy. He just plays the roll that gets him what he wants--money....oh excuse me, "unfair advantages" I should have said.

I simply don't see Sowell that way at all. He is a great example of somebody who is pretty much a wholly self-made man. His dad died before he was born and his mom, who already had four kids to raise, simply could not handle a newborn so his great aunt and her daughters raised him. A highschool drop out and self-proclaimed Marxist, he served in Korea and, via his military credentials, landed a low level government job that allowed him to attend night classes and eventually graduate summa cum laude from Harvard and earn a PhD in economics and an emphasis on history. By that time he had figured out the serious flaws in Marxism and rejected it in favor of free market principles and is currently a strong libertarian (small 'L"). He knows what it is to be at the bottom, and he knows what earned success looks and feels like.

He is right that indoctrinating people with class envy is destructive which I think was his motive for the article cited in the OP. But I don't get the sense that he just writes junk or promotes stuff for personal gain. I have been following his writings since the early 1980's and he has never written what was 'popular' or 'commercially attractive' and his convictions have been rock solid.

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

But poor kids, especially, have just one time, during their school years, to equip their minds with math, science and other solid skills that will give them a shot at a better life.

To squander their time on rap sessions and navel-gazing is unconscionable.

Yes, of course Britpat, I can see how pretending that there is no inequality, which is something that the kids from the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder know very , is absolutely harmful. In fact, it might lead to overthrowing your Koch-whoring Gestapo behind. That's what truly scares the crap out of folks like you. When you have a wealthier kid make statements about social justice, you get a little scared.

No one is pretending that inequality doesn't exist, dingbat. However, you are deluding yourself if you believe government can end inequality. If it attempted to do so, the result would be mass starvation. Inequality is a fact of life, and the constant blubbering of libturds over it, as if government could do something about it, only shows what absolute morons they are.

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

How funny from the running dog of the commies. Still quoting commie drivel from WHO?

Fakey, we all know that you quoted propaganda published by the official propaganda organs of the communist government of Cuba.

Who are you trying to kid?

 

[bripat9643]

Didn't take this thread long to degenerate. Great minds...

Any thread will degenerate the minute Disir submits a post to it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Only one paragraphs into the NYT article reveals that Sowell is engaging in the usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda. This man represents the real bankruptcy of morals in this nation.

University Heights High School is on St. Anns Avenue in the South Bronx, which is part of the poorest congressional district in America, according to the Census Bureau. Six miles away is the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, with its arched stone entrance and celebrities’ children and $43,000-a-year tuition. Eight years ago, as part of a program called Classroom Connections, students from the schools began exchanging letters, which eventually led to a small group from University Heights visiting Fieldston for a day

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Only one paragraphs into the NYT article reveals that Sowell is engaging in the usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda. This man represents the real bankruptcy of morals in this nation.

University Heights High School is on St. Anns Avenue in the South Bronx, which is part of the poorest congressional district in America, according to the Census Bureau. Six miles away is the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, with its arched stone entrance and celebrities’ children and $43,000-a-year tuition. Eight years ago, as part of a program called Classroom Connections, students from the schools began exchanging letters, which eventually led to a small group from University Heights visiting Fieldston for a day

How does that line make Sowell's perceptions liberal bashing? He is expressing his opinion that programs like these are for purposes of social propaganda rather than for the purpose of any real education. Look at this comment cited in the NY Magazine piece:

ADAM “As a kid, you’re unaware that there are people who don’t have what you have. Then you realize, Oh, my God, there are people who don’t have anything like what I have. And you realize you’ve been given an unfair advantage. It’s my responsibility to use that advantage for social justice and to make the world a better place.

Unfair advantage? Advantage yes. To see one's advantages as also being a moral responsibility to use them responsibly for good is commendable. But to see one's advantage--an advantage that one's parents most likely worked very hard to provide for their children--as unfair? That is liberal nonsense in huge flashing neon lights.

I have no problem with those who can articulate an argument in opposition to Sowell's point of view. I invited that in the OP. But to characterize his point of view as "usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda" just is not credible in this context and is as much partisan bullshit as would be my characterization of those who disagree with Sowell as being the 'usual left wing conservative bashing propaganda."

 

[Disir]

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

But poor kids, especially, have just one time, during their school years, to equip their minds with math, science and other solid skills that will give them a shot at a better life.

To squander their time on rap sessions and navel-gazing is unconscionable.

Yes, of course Britpat, I can see how pretending that there is no inequality, which is something that the kids from the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder know very , is absolutely harmful. In fact, it might lead to overthrowing your Koch-whoring Gestapo behind. That's what truly scares the crap out of folks like you. When you have a wealthier kid make statements about social justice, you get a little scared.

How about we focus on the concept presented instead of throwing out partisan insulting characterizations for a start? Thanks. I knew you would understand.

Sowell did NOT pretend in any way that there is no equality. He was quite explicit that the inequality was obvious, even glaring, to the point that the less advantaged kids were completely demoralized. And I think his point was that this is not only cruel in creating class envy in the kids, but he was expressing how futile such a program is. He brought to light that the 'moral bankruptcy' was in wasting time in that way and calling it education when the emphasis should be on providing the poor kids the basics that could actually change their lives; actually equip them to pull themselves out of their current circumstances.

Sowell is extreme right wing. He is partisan. He managed to take a small puff piece and blow it out of proportion. He makes his money off of division. And fear.

How about I pay attention to the article AND slap the shit out of my stalker? Thanks, I knew you would understand.


How many demoralized kids did you see in that article? It's been running for 8 years.

So, the kids go out and work on a project where they have to learn how to work with each other. I can see how that is horrific. Taking time out to learn that the kids from different backgrounds have similarities. I can see how that is horrific.

So why don't we cut the shit and get down to what really ticks him off. Multiculturalism. That drives him crazy.

You against multiculturalism?

 

[Bfgrn]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Only one paragraphs into the NYT article reveals that Sowell is engaging in the usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda. This man represents the real bankruptcy of morals in this nation.

University Heights High School is on St. Anns Avenue in the South Bronx, which is part of the poorest congressional district in America, according to the Census Bureau. Six miles away is the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, with its arched stone entrance and celebrities’ children and $43,000-a-year tuition. Eight years ago, as part of a program called Classroom Connections, students from the schools began exchanging letters, which eventually led to a small group from University Heights visiting Fieldston for a day

How does that line make Sowell's perceptions liberal bashing? He is expressing his opinion that programs like these are for purposes of social propaganda rather than for the purpose of any real education. Look at this comment cited in the NY Magazine piece:

ADAM “As a kid, you’re unaware that there are people who don’t have what you have. Then you realize, Oh, my God, there are people who don’t have anything like what I have. And you realize you’ve been given an unfair advantage. It’s my responsibility to use that advantage for social justice and to make the world a better place.

Unfair advantage? Advantage yes. To see one's advantages as also being a moral responsibility to use them responsibly for good is commendable. But to see one's advantage--an advantage that one's parents most likely worked very hard to provide for their children--as unfair? That is liberal nonsense in huge flashing neon lights.

I have no problem with those who can articulate an argument in opposition to Sowell's point of view. I invited that in the OP. But to characterize his point of view as "usual right wing liberal bashing propaganda" just is not credible in this context and is as much partisan bullshit as would be my characterization of those who disagree with Sowell as being the 'usual left wing conservative bashing propaganda."

"Teachers are givers in a world dominated by takers, and they're also sharers. This collaborative instinct makes our profession unlike any other."
Barbara Keshishian


You have your head so far up your self righteous right wing ass you are totally obtuse to anything 'credible'.

THIS is PURE propaganda. THIS is liberal bashing BULLSHIT.

No doubt those adults who believe in envy and resentment get their jollies from doing things like this — and from feeling that they are creating future envy and resentment voters to forward the ideological agenda of the big government left.

But at the expense of kids?

There was a time when common sense and common decency counted for something. Educators felt a responsibility to equip students with solid skills that could take them anywhere they wanted to go in later life — enable them to become doctors, engineers or whatever they wanted to be.

Too many of today's "educators" see students as a captive audience for them to manipulate and propagandize.

In everybody's life if you picked five people who had the biggest influence on you, outside of your family, almost everyone would have a teacher or a coach on that list.
Tom Verducci

 

[Disir]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/04/magazine/tale-of-two-schools.html?_r=0

^^^ That's the article.

I think Sowell is a two bit whine bag hack.

This article troubles me, but not in the way it might appear. The cultural narrative has changed in a bad way. Instead of enabling success, we are justifying the lack of it. The kid talking about how he was unfairly advantaged because he did not suffer the ill effects of life that other kids had is just such a wrong message. Maybe instead if vilifying people who have had more opportunities, we should strive more to create opportunities for those who don't enjoy such instead of indoctrinating people with this "Anybody who is successful has unfair advantages" nonsense.

Sowell is a smart guy. He just plays the roll that gets him what he wants--money....oh excuse me, "unfair advantages" I should have said.

Did you miss this?

Ashley: “I am a TEAK Fellow at Fieldston. TEAK is an organization that helps low-income students gain admission to prestigious private high schools and colleges. I wish conversations about class and wealth would happen at Fieldston, but socioeconomic status is one of the hardest things to have open conversations about. How do you make people feel safe and included without being too vulnerable?”

perhaps this?

Nagib: “My mom works really hard for a little bit of money. I used to be ashamed to admit this, but now I embrace it. Being poor is the biggest motivation for me because I come from the bottom, and my goal is to reach the top. People say that success is not determined by income, and I mostly agree, but I want my success to be determined by income. I want to be able to support my family. Also, most of the things that I worry about now are money-related, and I don’t want my children to have to worry like my siblings and I did.”

I'm sure those met with your approval. Yes?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, of course Britpat, I can see how pretending that there is no inequality, which is something that the kids from the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder know very , is absolutely harmful. In fact, it might lead to overthrowing your Koch-whoring Gestapo behind. That's what truly scares the crap out of folks like you. When you have a wealthier kid make statements about social justice, you get a little scared.

How about we focus on the concept presented instead of throwing out partisan insulting characterizations for a start? Thanks. I knew you would understand.

Sowell did NOT pretend in any way that there is no equality. He was quite explicit that the inequality was obvious, even glaring, to the point that the less advantaged kids were completely demoralized. And I think his point was that this is not only cruel in creating class envy in the kids, but he was expressing how futile such a program is. He brought to light that the 'moral bankruptcy' was in wasting time in that way and calling it education when the emphasis should be on providing the poor kids the basics that could actually change their lives; actually equip them to pull themselves out of their current circumstances.

Sowell is extreme right wing. He is partisan. He managed to take a small puff piece and blow it out of proportion. He makes his money off of division. And fear.

How about I pay attention to the article AND slap the shit out of my stalker? Thanks, I knew you would understand.


How many demoralized kids did you see in that article? It's been running for 8 years.

So, the kids go out and work on a project where they have to learn how to work with each other. I can see how that is horrific. Taking time out to learn that the kids from different backgrounds have similarities. I can see how that is horrific.

So why don't we cut the shit and get down to what really ticks him off. Multiculturalism. That drives him crazy.

You against multiculturalism?

What purpose could this exercise have other than to rub the noses of the poor kids in the fact that they don't enjoy all the luxuries that rich kids enjoy? The fact that you don't see a problem with it only shows what a craven. fellow traveler, apologist for statist brainwashing you are.

 

[bripat9643]

In everybody's life if you picked five people who had the biggest influence on you, outside of your family, almost everyone would have a teacher or a coach on that list.
Tom Verducci

That's one of the most unfortunate facts I can think of.