The hearing has just concluded. The Judge was not happy. He found that the text messages concealed from the court were important, and that he was misled. He said he felt he had no choice but to withdraw his Opinion, and will decide later after the parties submit briefing, what he is able to do beyond withdrawing the Opinion given that the case is on appeal.
The Judge said he wants briefing as to his authority to do more than just withdraw the Opinion, including whether the school committee counsel and defense counsel violated ethical rules in the redactions of text messages and failing to call the court’s attention to the deception after it was revealed.
So the question is not just about whether or not the Boston school board will lose the case, but whether or not there will be criminal or civil consequences for withholding this information. For those who are not keeping up on this case, the Boston school system was sued for changing the manner in which they choose which students attend the advanced schools.
This has been done on totally on merit. Those students with the highest academic and testing achievements were invited to the elite schools. But the Boston school system put an end to that process and replaced it with a process that would require the elite schools to have an equal representation from across every area of the Boston schools.
While this might seem to be a noble cause and work to provide "inclusion" for minorities, most of our laws in the United States still forbid using race to make many of these determinations. The committee suggested that race was not a factor and the Judge accepted this. But when racist anti-white emails were exposed showing that the motivation for this might not have been what they offered, all hell broke loose.
49 comments:
In fact, central to CRT is the premise that race is legally and socially constructed. CRT scholar Devon Carbado explains well:
CRT rejects the view that race precedes law, ideology, and social relations. Instead, Critical Race Theorists conceptualize race as a product of law, ideology, and social relations. According to CRT, the law does not simply reflect ideas about race. The law constructs race: Law has historically employed race as a basis for group differentiation, entrenching the idea that there are “in fact” different races; law has helped to determine the racial categories (e.g., Black, White, Yellow) into which institutions and individuals place people; law sets forth criteria or rules (e.g., phenotype and ancestry) by which we map people into those racial categories; law has assigned social meaning to the categories (e.g., Whites are superior; Blacks are inferiors; Japanese Americans are disloyal); law has employed those meanings to structure hierarchical arrangements (e.g., legalized slavery for inferior people (Blacks) and legalized internment for people who are disloyal (people of Japanese descent)); and those legal arrangements, in turn, have functioned to confirm the social meanings that law helped to create (e.g., the people who are enslaved must be inferior; that is why they are enslaved; the people who are interned must be disloyal; that is why they are interned). (“Critical What What,” p. 1610)
In sum, along with CLS, Critical Race Theory began as a fundamental rejection of vulgar Marxism.
https://alsoacarpenter.com/2021/03/23/is-critical-race-theory-marxist/
The same people who claim they oppose Critical Race Theory bans in schools because “muh academic freedom to teach controversial ideas and history” would be the first to build bonfires for witch-burning if they learned teachers were telling students Trump actually won in 2020.
If someone who clearly supports CRT but won’t admit it says it shouldn’t be banned because “we can’t ban ideas or controversial topics,” introduce him to Critical Election Theory for K-12, which argues 2020 was rigged and Trump won, and see how he reacts.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1413512487182376960
CRT rejects the view that race precedes law, ideology, and social relations. Instead, Critical Race Theorists conceptualize race as a product of law, ideology, and social relations. According to CRT, the law does not simply reflect ideas about race. The law constructs race: Law has historically employed race as a basis for group differentiation, entrenching the idea that there are “in fact” different races; law has helped to determine the racial categories (e.g., Black, White, Yellow) into which institutions and individuals place people; law sets forth criteria or rules (e.g., phenotype and ancestry) by which we map people into those racial categories; law has assigned social meaning to the categories (e.g., Whites are superior; Blacks are inferiors; Japanese Americans are disloyal); law has employed those meanings to structure hierarchical arrangements (e.g., legalized slavery for inferior people (Blacks) and legalized internment for people who are disloyal (people of Japanese descent)); and those legal arrangements, in turn, have functioned to confirm the social meanings that law helped to create (e.g., the people who are enslaved must be inferior; that is why they are enslaved; the people who are interned must be disloyal; that is why they are interned). (“Critical What What,” p. 1610)
This is your dream? A segregated society based on race? Guess we better get out the separate drinking fountains, along with diners who don't serve blacks or whites.
CRT is a nightmare.
You would support segregation again
That's a stupid-ass thing to say Roger since you're the segregationist who supports CRT. I take to mean you have no rebuttal to my argument.
This could be the most important speech of his career.
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden will deliver remarks in Philadelphia on Tuesday about his administration’s actions “to protect the sacred constitutional right to vote,” a source familiar with the matter tells NBC News.
The White House has been under pressure from progressive and civil rights activists to make stronger use of the presidential bully pulpit as Republicans at the state and local level have been pushing new restrictive voting laws in the name of fraud prevention.
New rules imposed in some Republican-controlled states will restrict when voting can happen, imposing voter ID requirements and overhauling election administration. They have been enacted in concert with former President Donald Trump's continued efforts to falsely claim that the 2020 election was stolen via rampant fraud, despite zero evidence
Philadelphia is rich in both political and historical significance for the president, who kicked off his 2020 campaign there in what he called the “birthplace of our democracy.”
In a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, last month, Biden said the “sacred right is under assault with an incredible intensity like I’ve never seen,” calling it “simply un-American.” He has promised multiple times since to travel the country speaking out about voting.
On Thursday, Biden met with leading civil rights groups, who have called on him to take a stronger stance in support of federal voting legislation championed by Democrats, including to support calls to abolish the filibuster for voting rights legislation.
The administration has focused their efforts on executive actions — primarily through the Justice Department — while also signaling they intend to make a major political push on this in the midterm elections.
Vice President Kamala Harris kicked off that effort Thursday, announcing the DNC’s $25 million expansion of its “I Will Vote” Campaign, focused on voter registration, education and turnout efforts.
“We are going to assemble the largest voter-protection team we have ever had to ensure that all Americans can vote and have your vote counted in a fair and transparent process,” Harris said
The Republicans of today is an su party now.
CRT does not support segregation or hatred of white people or a Marxists government
In the article you quote that's exactly what CRT is.
President Joe Biden will deliver remarks in Philadelphia on Tuesday about his administration’s actions “to protect the sacred constitutional right to vote,” a source familiar with the matter tells NBC News.
He means the sacred right of Democrats to stuff the ballot box for their candidate, He got his cheat-sheet upside down.
common...
Do you actually believe that Roger has the first clue about what is in the articles he links? Half the time he just assumes that they coordinate to his belief when in fact they don't.
His initial instincts about CRT was that it was "bonkers" and he demanded (assumed) that his Party was not equally "bonkers" to believe it.
One cannot argue systemic racism, microaggressions, white privilege and pretend that you are not putting race front and center. But that is exactly the ridiculous argument being set forth today.
Roger just follows along because he is a sheeple.
Election Wizard
https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1413693793380053000
NEW: Joe Biden will travel to Pennsylvania to fight against senate election audit.
panic
election integrity will kill the democrat party
You can't comprehend, when upon further information is available a reasonable person can change his or her mind, without being brainwashed, like you have said since he got the nomination
When I first looked up, I checked out the right wing media websites and then the other side.
I was not brainwashed because I am highly intelligent and despite a lower education, I make my own decisions because I am able to be objective when further credible evidence I figured out how dangerous the world is in.
Scott just follows along because he is a sheeple.
BEST VIDEO of the YEAR !!!
thebradfordfile
VIDEO:
https://twitter.com/thebradfordfile/status/1413856204548419584
EVERYONE needs to watch this.
exactly my feelings
common...
Do you actually believe that Roger has the first clue about what is in the articles he links?
My mistake, I assume he actually read the articles he linked instead of just the headlines.
Scott racism, microaggressions, white privilege still exists.
But legally racism, microaggressions, white privilege,can and should be addressed though legislation and repealing the filibuster.
That's what they gave us 235 years ago and you don't support them anymore.
I read a lot faster than most people
I read every single word.
Democrats did not stuff the ballot boxes.
Every single auditors reported the votes were legal ballots.
Even the conservative Court system rejected 60 suits.
You can't comprehend, when upon further information is available a reasonable person can change his or her mind, without being brainwashed, like you have said since he got the nomination
Problem here Roger...
Is that there is no "new information". CRT has not evolved or changed one bit since it first came up just a few months ago. Moreover, when I asked you what "new information" you were provided, you offered me opinion journalism from the NYT, WaPo, and other opinion statements by other liberals.
THat is not "new information". That is just you learning that the opinions of other liberals differed from your own.
This is where you and I will always differ.
If I don't agree with something other conservatives believe, then I stick by my own principles largely because I am much more convinced that political ideologies are wrong way more often than I am (as an informed person). I am more "married" to the opinion I developed than an alternate opinion being pushed by other conservatives.
You, on the other hand, literally have almost no regard for your own opinion and are married to the opinions of your liberal influencers. You much prefer to believe that if here is a difference between how "you" see something and your Party sees something, that YOU (not the Party) must be wrong.
That is exactly what happened with CRT.
You thinking for yourself. It's bonkers.
Once you read what other liberals were pushing. Well I must have been wrong.
If you were my teacher, who would ask me what I read. Because I have an almost photographic memory. It helped me get jobs that usually require a bachelor's degree .
Did I use it properly? But it exists to this day.
The filibuster is a Senate rule all it takes is a simple majority to get rid of it. You just can't get a majority of Democrats to sign on.
For the very good reason that someday (could be soon) the Democrats willl be in the minority. And for Democrat Senators to have any relevance they will have to have the filibuster in place.
Otherwise, the Democrats didn't learn their lesson as they helplessly watch as McConnell ram Trump appointee after Trump appointee into judicial positions.
Roger - I asked you what you read.
You provided me liberal opinion pieces from liberal opinion journalists providing a liberal opinion.
Do you actually believe that reading someone else's "opinion" is new information?
Btw... I don't believe you can remember where you put your walker when you wake up in the morning, much less remember anything you actually read about CRT.
You went from having a personal opinion to pushing the talking points memo of the liberal influencers 100%. Just like you always do.
I am much more convinced that political ideologies are wrong way more often than I am.
Scott, that is exactly what I said!
I read both sides Scott and I made up my own mind. You didn't because you are a conservative.
I didn't make up my own mind based upon my liberal views.
You think that thinking for yourself is bonkers because of your opinion, not upon the evidence.
If I was a prosecutor I would never let you on the jury.
Ever since the death of George Floyd, your own personal beliefs block your objectivity.
Time to move on because you aren't rational anymore.
Because I have an almost photographic memory.
Where's that Liberty Bell again?
LOL.
Alky, you're a drunken sot locked in a nursing home. I doubt you remember what color your Jello was yesterday.
And that piece you spammed the blog with? That guy employs YOUR tactic. That piece was packed with quotes from others, and on about half of them the guy did a piss-poor job of vox-splaining them.
The guy's a fraud, so I can see how he captured your fascination.
watching CHT and roger going back and forth is like watching a juvenile clown going against his scholarly teacher.
and roger thinks he is the teacher
ROFLMFAO !!!
roger thinks the longer his copied post the more weight it carries. And if it references someone's status that makes it more credible. Unless it is a conservative. Or unless he agrees with the position.
Of course he himself is incapable of either cogent lengthy posts or credentials.
Just look at the word salad when he writes a couple of paragraphs himself.
And he can't even recognize that when called out...
Word salad
Roger Amick said...
If you were my teacher, who would ask me what I read. Because I have an almost photographic memory. It helped me get jobs that usually require a bachelor's degree .
Did I use it properly? But it exists to this day.
Ever since the death of George Floyd, your own personal beliefs block your objectivity.
Junkie Floyd was a piece of shit drug addict and violent criminal.
YOU clowns held him up as some fucking angel and worshipped his junkie ass and it's US who lack objectivity???
LOL.
Every narrative you guys promote is a FALSE narrative, alky. Every fucking one. Junkie Floyd being no exception.
George Floyd's own brother said "All lives matter"
Made a point of it.
What did state media do about that ?
maybe his brother isn't a junkie and this media narrative isn't about George
Massive domestic terrorist compound discovered 60 miles north of NYC:
https://www.legoland.com/new-york/
Did I use it properly? But it exists to this day.
Yep. The alky is a legend in his own mind.
I went through three near death experiences in the last seven years.
I have finally recovered my mind.
Both medical and psychological issues.
But Scott, I have returned to sanity and actually medically recovered.
You have done the exact opposite.
You went from having a personal opinion to pushing the talking points of legalinsurrectium and the revolver. OMG.
They actually believe that entire Washington establishment is secret Communist organization, like I said before, when The John Birch Society existed.
It not liberal vs. conservative anymore.
But because the people spoke out loud in the last election cycle.
President Joe Biden is poised to be the most transitional President in history.
You will call it TDS but from my lifetime experience and again historical self education, he is the most dangerous person elected President.
George Floyd
Roger and his photographic memory has already forgotten that before the verdict he was convinced that Chauvin was only guilty of manslaughter (not murder).
But once again, when faced with the idea that others of his ilk disagreed, Roger slinked away into the liberal abyss and applauded even the "enhanced sentencing" for a crime he stated he didn't think Chauvin committed.
Once it was clear that his opinion differed from the liberal influence generated opinion, it had to be tossed to the wayside and homage must be paid!
Baaaaahhhhh!!!
People make mistakes rrb but I'm not a racist rodent bastard
a racist rodent bastard
Last time I checked, only one of you had been in police encounters with allegations of repeatedly assaulting a black woman.
But legally racism, microaggressions, white privilege,can and should be addressed though legislation and repealing the filibuster.
That's what they gave us 235 years ago and you don't support them anymore.
They also gave us the phrase "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".
This phrase gives the lie to the systemic racism portion of CRT. It also rebuts the very idea of inequality. CRT advocates have no argument so they dismiss the founding the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Because to accept these founding documents is the deny the validity of CRT.
Twelve jurors found Chauvin guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter,
During the trial period, I wasn't convinced that the second degree murder would happen. But the jurors made the decision.
I watched almost every day asshole.
If I had been on the jury I would have voted with the majority on all the charges asshole.
Those were civil charges during a divorce procedural period.
I never hit Lydia. Ever. I'm a non violent person.
I was never charged with a crime. Look it up your ass
If I had been on the jury I would have voted with the majority on all the charges asshole.
You just gave truth to the proposition that you can't think for yourself Roger.
Propaganda
You people don't know how to think independently of your political agenda.
I can.
You just gave truth to the proposition that you can't think for yourself Roger.
LOL. You beat me to it.
Here's to hoping that the alky never does serve on any jury, ever.
He'd be influenced by everything BUT the facts presented in evidence.
C.H. Truth said...
George Floyd
Roger and his photographic memory has already forgotten that before the verdict he was convinced that Chauvin was only guilty of manslaughter (not murder).
I could have saved everyone a bunch of time because I already knew how roger would vote before any charges were even brought.
like always
and make sure you don't ask him any construction questions
he supposedly built skyscrapers without a solid foundation
like his arguments
I never built a skyscraper. But unlike you I know what is required to build a foundation with enough strength to support the building for the foundation to be last pieces of trim.
Including the framework of the walls and the ceilings, including hardwall and other structures.
You people don't know how to think independently of your political agenda.
Calling CRT out for what it actually is - divisive, racist hatred - serves no political agenda alky. On the contrary, you guys seem hell bent on politicizing all criticism of it, while never bothering to publicly defend it.
Defend the curriculum. Defend it's authors, pundits and proponents. Defend the text. Defend all of it. In a public forum.
So far all I've seen is attacks on it's critics, shouting them down because... SHUT UP.
Lay it out for all to see in all it's splendor, take us through every word, and explain to us explicitly why it should be required to be taught in public schools.
Let's at least have the debate. Or are you afraid it's not defensible?
Part of me thinks your team is so larded up with grievance studies graduates with no marketable skills, this is just a natural extension of the cottage industry of racialism you've created, and these folks are just in it for the $$$.
Henry Rogers X is a classic example of this. He leads BU's "Everything and everyone but me is racist" Department, and he has clowns like Jack Dorsey donating million$. The lure of the grift is strong with that much money being thrown around.
Twelve jurors found Chauvin guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter
Sure... proving my point.
When it was just you giving your personal opinion, you stated on numerous occasions that you didn't think he committed murder (most legal experts concluded the same thing).
Now you come up here and say that you would have followed the crowd and also voted him guilty because everyone else did.
That is the opposite of holding independent thought.
That is literally allowing others to reformulate your opinion because of peer pressure.
Again! Thanks for proving my point.
Ask yourself this, Roger...
If you were truly an independent thinker rather than a cult follower of liberal doctine, you could not only tell us about the times you changed you mind after reading a liberal opinion piece... but as an independent thinker you would be equally able to change your mind because of a good conservative argument.
Tell us the last time your independence actually allowed you to not follow the liberal doctrine? Tell us the last time your independence was proven by changing your mind and saying that the liberal doctrine was actually wrong?
If you were truly an independent thinker rather than a cult follower of liberal doctine, you could not only tell us about the times you changed you mind after reading a liberal opinion piece... but as an independent thinker you would be equally able to change your mind because of a good conservative argument.
Or at the very least he could write his own comments and have them contain more than a couple fractured, word salad sentences.
Roger Amick said...
I never built a skyscraper. But unlike you I know what is required to build a foundation with enough strength to support the building for the foundation to be last pieces of trim.
Including the framework of the walls and the ceilings, including hardwall and other structures.
July 10, 2021 at 11:25 AM
Roger Amick said...
The foundation of a building supports the building.
I have built many different styles. From a house to skyscrapers and sewer treatment facilities. It's usually large enough to take hundreds of cubic feet structures.
You think that carpenters just use a hammer to drive nails into lumber.
LMAO even at 70 I would out work your ass off.
June 26, 2021 at 1:06 PM
Imagine that, in such a short time roger went from having built skyscrapers to not.
Must be after he got his ass handed to him over piers/pilings which he was clueless about. Thought you just needed to pour more concrete and rebar!!!
ROFLMFAO at the fraud!!!
See roger can change his mind
Post a Comment