Re: Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil rights: neocon girly manhood !?!

["Watters, Elizabeth" <Elizabeth.Watters@tri-c.edu>]

HAHAHAHAHA!  I was just thinking in my head that I wondered the qualifications in education or child development that these civil rights organizations have, and then you summed it up in one word.
wonderful.
too bad people are listening to HIS side, not ours.

________________________________

From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org on behalf of Horn, James
Sent: Mon 8/6/2007 10:58 PM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil rights: neocon girly manhood !?!



idiot


-----Original Message-----
From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org on behalf of aburke5054@aol.com
Sent: Mon 8/6/2007 10:20 PM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil rights: neocon girly manhood !?!

This list is getting more and more bizarre and farther and farther out.
  And that is saying something.  Some of the nation's most respected
civil-rights organizations and legal organizations with civil-rights
missions support the accountability that NCLB has brought to schools
and they believe that a retreat would weaken schools and would be a
serious blow to parents and children.  They're right about that.

Art


-----Original Message-----
From: QCao009@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org; fcarforum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 5:43 pm
Subject: [arn-l] Spinning NCLB "accountability" as civil rights: neocon
girly manhood !?!

_Black is white_ (http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/black_white)
Submitted by _Rick Perlstein_
(http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/user/rick_perlstein)  on August 6,
2007 -
8:55am.

When I wrote about  the Supreme Court's monstrously mendacious decision
to
ban local school  districts from seeking racial fairness, I was
especially
offended by Chief  Justice Roberts' formulation, "the way to stop
discrimination
on
the basis of  race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Historian Nancy McClean has now published an amazing little essay in
which
she reveals the workshops that churned out this Orwellian notion.
"Roberts's
decision," she writes, "is replete with quotable phrases from the
lexicon
conservative strategists honed in their think tanks in the 1970s and
then
carried
into the nation's courtrooms through their various legal societies."
Here's the story:
[H]ow did National Review greet the Brown decision? Frank Meyer, its
founding co-editor and the leading conservative movement builder in the

formative
years, called the high court's decision a "rape of the  Constitution."

To fight the implementation of Brown, Buckley and Meyer forged an 
alliance
with the intellectual architect of "massive resistance," James  Jackson
Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick's agitation against school desegregation as 
editor of
the
Richmond News Leader earned him praise as "one of the South's  most
talented
leaders" from the Mississippi-based white Citizens' Councils  then
working to
crush the civil rights movement.

Buckley traded mailing lists with this avid white supremacist 
organization
in 1958, assuring its leader that "Our position on states' rights  is
the same
as your own." Indeed, it was. What made "the White community" in  the
South "
entitled" to use any means necessary to keep blacks from voting, 
Buckley had
editorialized the year before, was that "it is the advanced race"  so
its "
claims of civilization supersede those of universal  suffrage."
But calling the emancipation of black schoolchildren a "rape," and
calling
blacks civilizationally inferior, wasn't flying with the public. So
they did
what conservative do: borrowed from the black arts of corporation
public
relations.
They were tutored by northern neo-conservatives like Irving Kristol,
who  in
1964 warned Buckley of the "political folly" of arguing against school
desegregation "in terms of racial differences." Buckley and his allies
wisely
dropped the racial rationales and most now say that they regret their
earlier
arguments.

But their core commitments stayed the same. To fight social justice,
conservative spokesmen simply mastered the art of rhetorical jujitsu.
They
seized
the civil rights movement's greatest strength--its moral power-to 
defeat its
goals. They complained less and less that civil rights measures 
violated
property rights, aided communists or elevated racial inferiors. 
Instead,
conservatives claimed that civil rights measures themselves 
discriminated.

"I am getting to be like the Catholic convert who became more Catholic 
than
the Pope," Kilpatrick marveled in 1978 about his own altered
phraseology.  "
If it is wrong to discriminate by reason of race or sex," intoned the
outspoken enemy of civil rights, "well, then, it is wrong to
discriminate by
reason
of race or sex."

The former segregationists now portrayed themselves as the true 
advocates of
fairness. They framed "the egalitarians," in Kilpatrick's words,  as
"worse
racists--much worse racists--than the old Southern  bigots."...
Yes: quite literally, they argued that black was white. Read the whole
essay
_here_ (http://hnn.us/articles/41501.html) , then groove to Nancy's
_book _
(http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Not-Enough-Workplace-Foundation/dp/0674019
091/ref
=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0698794-2006438?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186404043&sr=8-1)
Freedom Is Not Enough: The Opening of  the American Workplace.


Quan





************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-------------------------------------------------------
ARN-L archives:
http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html






________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
-------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe ARN-L:
http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html