[flagged]
I bluntly don't get this. About 75% of the US population is white [1], and Seattle are is not particularly thickly populated by Blacks (unlike Southeast), Native Americans (unlike the Great Lakes area), etc. In other words, the program managed to bring in more racially diverse students than one would expect from average numbers.
I also don't see any quotation saying that the particular racial makeup was the reason to alter the program. I suspect racial profiling in education might just be unlawful!
[1]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/POP010220
https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/washington/districts/se...
Both sides of the political spectrum have extremes.
And regardless, what is "that philosophy"? You're making up a bucket and putting people in it who might not agree with each other. That's a very common political fallacy - pointing at any two disparate ideas from the same 50% of the political spectrum and calling "hypocrite".
Well if there is a more perfect illustration on why society in 2024 cannot have a reasonable and intelligent discussion about anything, I can’t name it. “I’m not going to read it…but I am going to comment on it anyway” is intellectually lazy.
Just go read the article, then comment. Don’t be afraid of words, you can still think for yourself even when you read things in sources that might occasionally write things that you disagree with…
Q: Explain to me why people of a certain school of thought say that race is a made up social construct and human races don't exist, but then people of that school of thought make decisions based on race, such as banning gifted classes because there are too many of one race and not enough of another
A:This is a complex and sensitive topic. I'll aim to provide an objective overview of the arguments and perspectives involved.
The idea that race is a social construct, not a biological reality, is supported by many scientists and social theorists. They argue that the genetic variation within racial groups is greater than the variation between them, and that racial categories don't map neatly onto genetic clusters. Instead, the argument goes, race is a social and historical construct - an arbitrary way of categorizing people that has shifted over time and place based on superficial characteristics like skin color.
However, even if race isn't "real" biologically, it has very real social, economic, and political ramifications. Centuries of racial discrimination and oppression have created stark inequalities between racial groups in areas like wealth, education, health outcomes, etc. Those who want to ban gifted classes or implement other race-conscious policies argue that colorblind policies aren't enough to undo those inequities. They believe proactively favoring historically disadvantaged racial groups is necessary to level the playing field.
Critics argue that even if the intention is to remedy past racism, making decisions based on race is itself a form of racism that reinforces racial essentialism and division. They say individual students should be judged as individuals, not primarily as members of racial groups. Some argue that factors like income, not race, should be used to promote equity and diversity.
Fundamentally, there's tension between the view that racial disparities stem from unjust social structures that need to be intentionally re-engineered, and the classically liberal view that government and institutions should be colorblind and treat everyone as an individual. Smart people of good faith come down on different sides of that debate.
These are thorny issues without easy answers. Historically, racism has done immense harm, and racial inequities persist today. At the same time, enshrining race-based policymaking risks unintentionally reinforcing racial divisions and treating people as representatives of racial groups rather than individuals. In my view, the path forward is to strive for a society of true equal opportunity while being mindful of not unduly burdening or discriminating against individuals in the process. But I respect that others may see it differently. Open and empathetic dialogue to understand each other's perspectives is essential.