Home

Site information

Subscribe

Store

Donate

Back Issues

News Archives
by Date

News Archives
by Category

Contact Us

Send Us a
News Story

Write for AR

Interviews with
Jared Taylor

AR in the News

AR Attic

Activists

Links



Amren store on Amazon.com
Buy through this link and help AR


Atom news feed
RSS 1.0 news feed
RSS 2.0 news feed
American Renaissance

Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Post a Comment       Send This Page

Getting The Numbers Right

AR Articles on Anti-Discrimination Law
The Law is an Ass (Sep. 1999)
The Nightmare World of Anti-Discrimination Law (May 1992)
Obstreperous Whites (May 1993)
Who Wants to be a Black Millionaire? (Feb. 2001)
Search AmRen.com for Anti-discrimination Law
More news stories on Anti-Discrimination Law
Edmund Janko, Opinion Journal, Oct. 25, 2006

{snip}

More than 25 years ago, when I was dean of boys at a high school in northern Queens, we received a letter from a federal agency pointing out that we had suspended black students far out of proportion to their numbers in our student population. Though it carried no explicit or even implicit threats, the letter was enough to set the alarm bells ringing in all the first-floor administrative offices.

{snip}

There never was a smoking-gun memo, or a special meeting where the word got out, and I never made a conscious decision to change my approach to punishment, but somehow we knew we had to get our numbers “right”—that is, we needed to suspend fewer minorities or haul more white folks into the dean’s office for our ultimate punishment.

What this meant in practice was an unarticulated modification of our disciplinary standards. For example, obscenities directed at a teacher would mean, in cases involving minority students, a rebuke from the dean and a notation on the record or a letter home rather than a suspension. For cases in which white students had committed infractions, it meant zero tolerance. Unofficially, we began to enforce dual systems of justice. Inevitably, where the numbers ruled, some kids would wind up punished more severely than others for the same offense.

I remember one case in particular. It was near the end of the day, and the early-session kids were heading toward the exits. I stood in front of my office looking deanlike, establishing the presence of authority to ensure orderly dismissal. It didn’t entirely work. The boy was a white kid, tall, with an unruly mop of blond hair. He was within 200 feet of the nearest exit and blessed freedom. But he couldn’t wait. The nicotine fit was on him, and he lit a cigarette barely two yards from me. I pounced, and within 20 minutes he was suspended—for endangering himself and others.

{snip}

But, of course, we might have achieved the same result and arranged a parent conference without resorting to suspension. The kid wasn’t a chronic troublemaker—indeed, until now he’d been a complete stranger to the dean’s office. It was a first offense. And keeping him out of school for a whole week, the maximum that state law allows, was obviously not going to help him with his grades.

During the principal’s hearing, as I sat across the table from the boy and his father, I recalled a classic essay that I had often taught my senior English classes. It was by George Orwell, and it recalled an unpleasant incident during his service as a policeman in Burma. Knowing that he was doing wrong, Orwell shot an elephant to save face before a mocking crowd of natives. No one suggested that we had acted incorrectly. Kids in our charge had to learn right from wrong, we told ourselves. But, more than two decades later, I still can’t escape the nagging thought that, though we had other choices, better suited for the boy’s welfare, at bottom all of us just wanted to get our numbers right.

Original article

(Posted on October 26, 2006)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)