Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Toronto School Board eyes "Afro-centric" school


Recommended Posts

How come we're allowed to report that the school dropout rate amongst Blacks is 40% without a peep.....but when you try to report any statistics on Black crime - it's racist and racial profiling?

We have leaders that are a combination of warm liberalism and conservative racist contempt - damn slaves are asking for rights - how dare they. We cry in guilt that the drop out rate is 40% - that makes us look good yet our white judges release gang bangers caught with guns for one sole reason - so as the bad black guys will go out and kill other blacks...it's a very clever scheme and a very nice secret policy amoung our judgeship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We have leaders that are a combination of warm liberalism and conservative racist contempt - damn slaves are asking for rights - how dare they. We cry in guilt that the drop out rate is 40% - that makes us look good yet our white judges release gang bangers caught with guns for one sole reason - so as the bad black guys will go out and kill other blacks...it's a very clever scheme and a very nice secret policy amoung our judgeship.

Please bare with me as I continue my post - this morning I was pondering that fact that white eccentric schools like Upper Canada College cater to a certain segment of society..a certain group. There are also private schools in the Jewish and now Muslim community. It only goes to figure that after all the labour the grandfathers and great grandfathers of the Canadian blacks - that after enriching white society...they should in all fairness have their own PRIVATE school. That's what we are really talking about here....a private black school that would empower the young not just program and condition them as the public school system now does. It makes you wonder who's pulling the Premier of Ontarios strings? Give the blacks a fair shake for once is what I believe..let them form an elite..lets not resent them for attempting to do so- so far our policy as far as dealing with poor blacks in Toronto is an utter failure due to them being poo pooped and pandered to by liberal policy - I say set up a high quality private school and those that want to attend and have the talent - let them attend - after all that was a lot of sugar cane money that still sits in our banks to this day - we owe them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please bare with me as I continue my post - this morning I was pondering that fact that white eccentric schools like Upper Canada College cater to a certain segment of society..a certain group.

Erm... I won't argue against the point that UCC caters to a certain group, but you're far off in stating the school is "white eccentric" (I think you mean "white-centric"). In my years there the school population was probably 45% Caucasian (with various different ethnic groups therein), 40% East Asian, 10% South Asian, and the remainder "other." The school is also non-denominational.

It only goes to figure that after all the labour the grandfathers and great grandfathers of the Canadian blacks - that after enriching white society...they should in all fairness have their own PRIVATE school.

How ridiculous. Even if Canada was built on the backs of "blacks" (which it mostly was not), is now giving people who just happen to be of the same skin colour - apparently regardless of whether or not they're actually descended from any impoverished, abused "blacks" of old - a special, superior status really going to achieve anything? No, this is just more white-guilt tokenism.

Private schools are fine; if one has both the money and the ability to attend, then why not? But to make a school where money, ability, and skin colour are the deciding factors in enrollment? You'd create an institution more segregated and racist than UCC ever was in all 180 years of its existence.

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are wrong.

Pure laine refers to someone whose ancestry is entirely Quebecois and has nothing to do with blood lines from France.

Many consider the term to be racist in a multicultural country like Canada.

Respectfully no. In its most common usage its used to refer to people who could claim deep heritage and history in the province BUT you have to go one step furtehr because the " pure laine " or " de souche" in fact refers to Quebecers, whose ancestors thread back to the first first French-speaking colonists who came to Quebec so you are part right.

But why its racist is because it necessarily refers to blood ties to the first French colonialists.

Now mind you its used in many different ways. Some use it today to describe anyone born in Quebec who believes Quebec should be independent, others believe it applies to only people born in Quebec who live there and speak French and are seperatist, others believe you have to be born there, speak French and have white skin, others like I said you have to be descended to the first French colonialists, but then it goes even further back from that as you can hear pure laine argue between themselves that some of their ancestors are Spanish or yegad Irish or English or from Belgium, and true pure laine must be traced to specific regions of France.

So with due respect it most certainly has to do with blood lines back to the French of France and the first colonialists. It necessarily means white or caucasian people from France. Its a couched racist word and its why any French speaking non white is not considered pure laine and precisely why I tell such people to fuck me but in French of course. I am Canadian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funding isn't determined by school population but by revenue generated by taxes. Before the neighboring school division amalgamated, the one in my town was bringing in a lot of tax revenue by the tax generated on farmland and with the student pop. decreasing year by year, the students were getting a lot more money per capita spent on them.
Provincial grants to school boards (and hence to individual schools) are usually based on a per student basis with adjustments. The situation you describe is still true though since in most provinces, local property taxes also pay for education. Wealthier neighbourhoods can afford better schools - unless the local government cuts the school tax.

My point still remains that people can choose their neighbourhood (and their property tax payment) and when they choose a school, they also determine where the provincial grant goes.

Imagine if you will if all the black families moved into a small town and took control of the local school board. They could design the school programme as they wish while still enjoying provincial per student grants.

I would respectfullly disagree and would argue the American understanding of minority issues other then language is not any different.

The constitution does entrench the right to French and English as official languages, but from a practical point of view all it means is where numebrs warrant it, there should be French and English schools. I would argue we legally have embraced embraced pretty much the same values JBG has stated other then with language.

Rue, I respectfully (and strongly) disagree.

Your facts are wrong. Our constitution goes well beyond stating language usage.

Here is Section 93 of the BNA Act as originally written in 1867:

93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:--

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2) All the Powers, Privileges and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:

(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)

Link

I quote it at length because it is unimaginable that you would find direct reference to 'Protestants' or 'Roman Catholics' in the US Constitution.

From its inception, Canada has identified minorities and treated them differently. We have explicitly guaranteed minority rights. The US Constitution (Bill of Rights) merely limits the powers of the government over individuals and treats all individuals the same.

US civil rights legislation was a departure in the sense that the US federal government began to regulate the private dealings between individuals or how American state governments dealt with citizens. Canada's history and its method of dealing with individuals and minorities are entirely different.

One thing I wonder, and maybe August1991 or Capricorn can take a stab at this, why doesn't the "when numbers warrant" analysis protect the rights of English speakers in Quebec the way it does French speakers in Ontario, Saskatchewan or Alberta?
This is still a subject of litigation and a Supreme Court decision is pending.

The original Quebec language law required that only parents who studied in an English school in Quebec could send their children to an English school in Quebec. IOW, immigrants to Quebec from outside Canada or Canadians moving to Quebec could not send their children to an English school. The Supreme Court struck this down and so the Quebec government adopted the so-called "Canada clause" (the current definition). A parent who studied in an English school in Canada can send their child to an English school in Quebec. IOW, an immigrant from abroad to Quebec (and French Quebecers who studied in Franch schools) must send their children to a French-language school.

The federal Supreme Court has ruled that the "Canada clause" is compatible with the federal Charter of Rights. To my knowledge, the Quebec government has never used the notwithstanding clause to apply language rules in education. (The PQ used the notwithstanding clause in blanket legislation in the early 1980s as a form of protest.)

-----

To return to the topic of this thread, it seems perfectly legitimate in my mind if a group of parents want to have a school for their children that offers a programme or methods of education that are different from other schools. Moreover, such a school should receive public funding like any other school.

Even a cursory glance at Canadian history is enough to see that we explicitly recognize certain groups and respect their differences. This is different from the American approach to minorities.

Lastly, I prefer to take a practical approach to many difficult moral questions. In this case, I think we would all like to see young black men stay in school and get an education. They shouldn't be involved with gangs or afraid of getting shot. If this kind of Afro-centric school works, then why would anyone object? Principles are fine if they promote some good. But if a principle accomplishes no good, then maybe it's not a principle.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
Provincial grants to school boards (and hence to individual schools) are usually based on a per student basis with adjustments. The situation you describe is still true though since in most provinces, local property taxes also pay for education. Wealthier neighbourhoods can afford better schools - unless the local government cuts the school tax.

My point still remains that people can choose their neighbourhood (and their property tax payment) and when they choose a school, they also determine where the provincial grant goes.

Imagine if you will if all the black families moved into a small town and took control of the local school board. They could design the school programme as they wish while still enjoying provincial per student grants.

Rue, I respectfully (and strongly) disagree.

Your facts are wrong. Our constitution goes well beyond stating language usage.

Here is Section 93 of the BNA Act as originally written in 1867:Link

I quote it at length because it is unimaginable that you would find direct reference to 'Protestants' or 'Roman Catholics' in the US Constitution.

From its inception, Canada has identified minorities and treated them differently. We have explicitly guaranteed minority rights. The US Constitution (Bill of Rights) merely limits the powers of the government over individuals and treats all individuals the same.

US civil rights legislation was a departure in the sense that the US federal government began to regulate the private dealings between individuals or how American state governments dealt with citizens. Canada's history and its method of dealing with individuals and minorities are entirely different.

This is still a subject of litigation and a Supreme Court decision is pending.

The original Quebec language law required that only parents who studied in an English school in Quebec could send their children to an English school in Quebec. IOW, immigrants to Quebec from outside Canada or Canadians moving to Quebec could not send their children to an English school. The Supreme Court struck this down and so the Quebec government adopted the so-called "Canada clause" (the current definition). A parent who studied in an English school in Canada can send their child to an English school in Quebec. IOW, an immigrant from abroad to Quebec (and French Quebecers who studied in Franch schools) must send their children to a French-language school.

The federal Supreme Court has ruled that the "Canada clause" is compatible with the federal Charter of Rights. To my knowledge, the Quebec government has never used the notwithstanding clause to apply language rules in education. (The PQ used the notwithstanding clause in blanket legislation in the early 1980s as a form of protest.)

-----

To return to the topic of this thread, it seems perfectly legitimate in my mind if a group of parents want to have a school for their children that offers a programme or methods of education that are different from other schools. Moreover, such a school should receive public funding like any other school.

Even a cursory glance at Canadian history is enough to see that we explicitly recognize certain groups and respect their differences. This is different from the American approach to minorities.

Lastly, I prefer to take a practical approach to many difficult moral questions. In this case, I think we would all like to see young black men stay in school and get an education. They shouldn't be involved with gangs or afraid of getting shot. If this kind of Afro-centric school works, then why would anyone object? Principles are fine if they promote some good. But if a principle accomplishes no good, then maybe it's not a principle.

When they choose a standard public school, that's where the money goes. Tax dollars should not be used to fund special interest schools that's for private money. The thing of it is that schools cost a lot of money to set up and run, when it is set up for special interest groups, their slice of the pie taxdollar wise wouldn't cut it as far as setting up a special school, this is why they need to be private so that the people who won't be attending won't get gyped on their taxes.

Everyone pays school taxes for schools and our public schools are geared towards the diversity of everyone by sticking to a strict cirriculum that puts no special interest group above another. I don't care if a black school opens, just not on the taxpayers dollar. This again is why private schools exist in the first place.

The local school board does not set the cirriculum, that job falls to the minister of education and his/her lackeys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When they choose a standard public school, that's where the money goes.

....

The local school board does not set the cirriculum, that job falls to the minister of education and his/her lackeys.

Define "standard" school in Canada?

Each province has its own education programme so we have at least 10 different standards. Within a province, there significant differences between rural and urban schools. (For example, the racial make-up of such schools is radically different.) In addition, most English provinces have French immersion schools (distinct from French schools for native speakers). Some provinces have denominational schools. (Both Ontario and Quebec fund religious schools.)

The curricula is set by the provincial ministry but local school boards, individual schools and even teachers apply that curricula.

IOW, we do not have "a standard public school" now in Canada. If you look at the historical record, Canada has explicitly made its schools non-standard.

Returning to the purpose of this thread, the proposed Afrocentric school in Toronto would apparently follow the base curricula set by Ontario's education ministry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Define "standard" school in Canada?

Each province has its own education programme so we have at least 10 different standards. Within a province, there significant differences between rural and urban schools. (For example, the racial make-up of such schools is radically different.) In addition, most English provinces have French immersion schools (distinct from French schools for native speakers). Some provinces have denominational schools. (Both Ontario and Quebec fund religious schools.)

The curricula is set by the provincial ministry but local school boards, individual schools and even teachers apply that curricula.

IOW, we do not have "a standard public school" now in Canada. If you look at the historical record, Canada has explicitly made its schools non-standard.

Returning to the purpose of this thread, the proposed Afrocentric school in Toronto would apparently follow the base curricula set by Ontario's education ministry.

I was defining standard as the provincial cirricula set by the provinces ed minister. I also know there is no ed minister in canada.

I don't think denominational schools should be funded publically.

If the Afrocentric school follows the base cirricula and other special interest schools are publically funded then obviously it would have to go.

Funding special interest groups is generally not fiscally conservative and i'm surprised you support this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive me if I sound very redundant. I'm new here and could not read in detail all 18 pages before I joined in, but I tried to skim through most of it. I've been reading about this in the media too. Of course, this is my city, so I do care about such a shockingly high percentage of teenagers who are failing out of high school and belong to one ethnic or racial group. Was it really 40% of black kids failing? I would hate to see some kind sprawling ethnic or racial ghetto that you might find in other world cities, created here by an uneducated and underemployed section of our society increasingly carrying guns and joining drug gangs. It seems really serious to me, and I can't see that any federal politician outside Toronto cares all that much what happens to us. :(

While I don't think the education system is to blame for it. How can you just ignore the problems in any community itself? I do think it's the education system itself that created the opening for this school. Education policy in Canada allows room for so much diversity and flexibility, at provincial and school board level, that we already have literally dozens of alternative schools in the city. Not too mention all the private schools that we never hear about. So, I'm not surprised at all that we now have a school for Black children only. (Q - Why are they not using African term, instead of "Black", for an Afrocentric school?) Since we already have, in Toronto, a mix of public and private schools for specific groups of people, ie. Girls, Boys, Catholics, Muslims, Natives, French-Canadians, Gay & Lesbian Teenagers etc.. etc.. not to mention the parents who simply educate their kids from home. So I don't think you can just look at this one school and try to shut the door on it, without looking at the whole education system in Toronto. As controversial as it might be to some, I actually think that it would fly just as easily if a bunch of parents decided to open the "Anglo-Saxon High School for Boys" or the "Irish Girls Elementary School" or the "Public School for White Children". After a Public school for Black children? What on earth could stop them?

I'm not saying that our education system should not have some diversity. I just think that there should be one strong, well-funded and as inclusive as possible, Toronto School Board for everyone in Toronto, with the exception of adding non-mainstream schools for kids with severe disabilities who can't be accomodated in regular schools. But since you can't please everyone, and there is nothing more important to parents than the eduction of children, any schools set up outside the main system, should be private and funded on bake sales or celebrity donations.. but closely monitored by the city and shut down on slightest conflict with Canadian education standards or if they promote hatred, racism, sexism etc..

Why should tax dollars from everyone even fund Gender or Religiously segregated schools? Never mind Racial or Ethnically segregated ones. I just don't understand why we can't iron out the one school system we have.

I am not without compassion for the desire in parents to build alternative or special interest schools, we all want to make sure our kids are not being abused by racists, or sexists, or British Colonialists, or Islamists or whatever.. and I will attend many bake sales or concerts to support some of them. Public funding? No. Why should I support all these schools, when some of them I think may be causing harm to my home-city?

Anyone agree?

And hello to everyone. I found this forum while searching for articles on Omar Khadr, and have enjoyed reading various messages in the different topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly that there should only be one publicly funded school system. My kids attend the local Catholic school (yes, I'm Catholic) but the decision to send them there was based solely on the fact that the public school they had been attending had staff that was even worse than the usual non-working teachers. If I was intent on keeping them in their current school, then someone should be sending me a fairly large bill.

"...just as easily if a bunch of parents decided to open the "Anglo-Saxon High School for Boys" or the "Irish Girls Elementary School" or the "Public School for White Children". After a Public school for Black children? What on earth could stop them?"

What could stop them? How about every politician and activist ever born? Face facts...you can only be a racist if you're white. And Christian. And pay taxes. A school centered on white people wouldn't even have a chance to open before whomever tried to start it was dragged in front of a Human Rights Circus and had to pay everything he had to defend himself. The MSM would crucify him across the country. The papers would portray him as a white supremest and want him charged under the criminal code for attempting to incite violence. Politicians would do everything they could to score political points with minorities by publicly speaking out against "this horrible intolerance".

If you doubt it, you're naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was defining standard as the provincial cirricula set by the provinces ed minister. I also know there is no ed minister in canada.
See below.
I'm not saying that our education system should not have some diversity. I just think that there should be one strong, well-funded and as inclusive as possible, Toronto School Board for everyone in Toronto...
Lucy, why stop at the border of Toronto? Do you mean that children outside of Toronto can go to a different school but all children in Toronto must go to the same school?

And how would you do this anyway? Do you mean that we should bus children from district to district to ensure that all schools have exactly the same "balance"?

People choose to live in a neighbourhood and they send their children to the neighbourhood school. Often, the people living in the neighbourhood share common characteristics. (eg. They can all afford to buy a house in the neighbourhood.)

The idea that all Canadian children should go to the same, single, standard school is not only contrary to our constitution, it's also contrary to our history and completely impractical. Children in Quebec learn about Canadian history in an entirely different way from children in Alberta or Newfoundland. This is a fundamental feature of Canada.

Our schools are different - the only remaining question is how they will be different. It seems to me that if parents in Toronto want to have a school for the special needs of their children, and the school's curriculum meets the criteria of the provincial education ministry, then I ask: why not?

There is no principle of a single public school system for all Canadian children; there isn't even a single curricula for all Canadian children.

Bottom line: If black kids can get a better education, learn more, stay in school, then who can possibly object?

----

If the Afrocentric school follows the base cirricula and other special interest schools are publically funded then obviously it would have to go.
Blueblood, I honestly don't know what you mean by this sentence.
Funding special interest groups is generally not fiscally conservative and i'm surprised you support this.
As a fiscal conservative, I want to get the most bang for the buck and I think that's possible if parents - not bureaucrats - decide how to spend public money for their children.

If you want to describe parents as a "special interest group", fine by me.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby Cosh agrees with me:

It is interesting to see the vectors of political correctness balanced so finely as they are in the emerging debate over the Toronto District School Board's (TDSB) plan to create at least one "Afrocentric" alternative school in the city. Almost all of us have enough liberal sentiment somewhere in our bones to be instinctively disturbed at the notion of explicitly "separate but equal" schools for Toronto's black youths. The TDSB is careful to insist that students of all races will be welcome at the new Africademy, but this can only be considered a cop-out. That said, the "separate but equal" tag really has no relevance for Canada. When it comes to black youths, we have no history of segregation to apologize for -- or to get hung up on. It seems there are many in Toronto's black community who are willing to give this "separate but equal" thing a try as a substitute for "integrated but failing."

Isn't it a little odd that so many white commentators have the chutzpah to tell black parents: "Sorry, your kids have to remain trapped in a system where they perform less well and drop out in much greater numbers -- in order to be equal to everyone else"?

Link

Canada is not a country of integration or assimilation. We respect our differences.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, and this has probably been said already...

A lot of the justifications for an Afro-centric school seem to centre on history...

Having been through the Ontario system many years before, I have no doubt that there is not a lot of Afro-history taught. When I was there, the Boer war was sort of avoided LOL. There was some focus on the sins of Germany and Italy. LOL.

I agree that there should be a more generalized approach to history in our schools, but I think Afro-centric (or any-centric) schools are a big mistake.

Schools are about education, to be sure, but they are also about socialization, and we need to get everybody working togetjher, do we not?

How can the electorate reject faith-based schools and end up with this? I am scratching my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that our education system should not have some diversity. I just think that there should be one strong, well-funded and as inclusive as possible, Toronto School Board for everyone in Toronto, with the exception of adding non-mainstream schools for kids with severe disabilities who can't be accomodated in regular schools. But since you can't please everyone, and there is nothing more important to parents than the eduction of children, any schools set up outside the main system, should be private and funded on bake sales or celebrity donations.. but closely monitored by the city and shut down on slightest conflict with Canadian education standards or if they promote hatred, racism, sexism etc..

Why should tax dollars from everyone even fund Gender or Religiously segregated schools? Never mind Racial or Ethnically segregated ones. I just don't understand why we can't iron out the one school system we have.

Finally, a new poster that both makes sense and isn't a troll.

Welcome aboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rue, I respectfully (and strongly) disagree. Your facts are wrong. Our constitution goes well beyond stating language usage."

August I absolutely agree with your point in response to me but that is not what I was referring to when I was referring to similiarity in minority rights. It is my f ault for not being clearer in my statement and your response is dead on.

All I was referring to is the concept that at the pith and substance of both our constitutions is the belief that the state can respect minority rights and guarantee their protection in the constitution but to do this requires checks and balances and an over-riding clause to qualify such guarantees.

I apologize for the unclear reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
I believe that for a country to be united, the schools should not be balkanized into numerous sub-units for gays, people of color, bestialists, etc. Segregation is in general a bad thing, and should be practiced to the bare minimum the Charter permits.
jbg, you don't understand Canada.

For many reasons, the BNA Act defines education as a provincial jurisdiction. Canada would not exist without this provision. IOW, and thanks to this provision, each Canadian has learned her own version of Canadian history - Newfoundlanders, Albertans, and even Quebecers have their own defintion of Canada and its history. Thank God!

Canadians are a multiethnic people with diverse views of their history. Imagine! We study the same events but have different views and opinions!

The US Bill of Rights is to Americans what the Section 92/93 provisions are to Canadians. Americans define themselves by "E pluribus unum". Canadians define themselves with "A Mare Usque Ad Mare". And then federal Canadian politicians speak French - if they want votes.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
jbg, you don't understand Canada.
I'm a willing learner.
For many reasons, the BNA Act defines education as a provincial jurisdiction. Canada would not exist without this provision. IOW, and thanks to this provision, each Canadian has learned her own version of Canadian history - Newfoundlanders, Albertans, and even Quebecers have their own defintion of Canada and its history. Thank God!
And why is that a good thing?
Canadians are a multiethnic people with diverse views of their history. Imagine! We study the same events but have different views and opinions!
Same with the US.
The US Bill of Rights is to Americans what the Section 92/93 provisions are to Canadians. Americans define themselves by "E pluribus unum". Canadians define themselves with "A Mare Usque Ad Mare". And then federal Canadian politicians speak French - if they want votes.
  1. What does "A Mare Usque Ad Mare" mean? and
  2. What are the consequences of the inability of a Federal Canadian Politician not being able to speak English fluently? I have a certain party leader in mind. Is one of the consequences multiple unexcused absences and abstentions from confidence votes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

I personally cannot wait for this to start. They can shoot at and sell drugs to each other in their own schools and leave the people who want to learn alone. The gangs, violence and drugs will proliferate, mark my words.

When it happens I cannot wait to hear the next excuse as to why it didn't work. Will it still be the white mans fault?

One once need to pay to go to Catholic school and I for one wouldn't mind if I had to pay. It would cut down on the undesirables who couldn't afford to go...win-win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally cannot wait for this to start. They can shoot at and sell drugs to each other in their own schools and leave the people who want to learn alone. The gangs, violence and drugs will proliferate, mark my words.

When it happens I cannot wait to hear the next excuse as to why it didn't work. Will it still be the white mans fault?

One once need to pay to go to Catholic school and I for one wouldn't mind if I had to pay. It would cut down on the undesirables who couldn't afford to go...win-win.

since you asked, 65%

Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally cannot wait for this to start. They can shoot at and sell drugs to each other in their own schools and leave the people who want to learn alone. The gangs, violence and drugs will proliferate, mark my words.
Aside from deciding a grade for your words, I think that it's preferable to have a world with fewer wars, and fewer drive-by shootings.

The WASPs in Canada (eg. Argus) could isolate themselves like Icelanders and pretend that the World is not their problem. Or, they could accept that travel is now cheap and Canadians travel around the world just like foreigners come here.

For better or worse, we increasingly live in a world where people are free to choose. They can travel here or there, or buy what they want.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from deciding a grade for your words, I think that it's preferable to have a world with fewer wars, and fewer drive-by shootings.

The WASPs in Canada (eg. Argus) could isolate themselves like Icelanders and pretend that the World is not their problem. Or, they could accept that travel is now cheap and Canadians travel around the world just like foreigners come here.

For better or worse, we increasingly live in a world where people are free to choose. They can travel here or there, or buy what they want.

What does this have to do with black schools August?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...