If voters are angry about the appointment process, they have the option of petitioning it and put it to a vote in November. For the second time in a row, the Davis School Board replaced the only woman of color with Joy Klineberg. While in 2018 that appointment was temporary and the seat would be filled a few months later, this appointment could stand for two and a half years, until November 2022.
This drew a response from outgoing board member Cindy Pickett, who called the decision “appalling” in a Facebook post on Thursday night.
The Vanguard talked to Pickett on Friday, and she believes there is a way forward—the voters have the option of putting the matter on the ballot.
The possibility was raised during a June 4 discussion. After a May 21 discussion where the board largely agreed to go the appointment process, Cindy Pickett started expressing second thoughts.
Legal counsel on June 4 noted, “Even in the event of an appointment there still is an opportunity to involve the community in that process.”
He said, “They also have a legal right… if that individual were not supported by the community if they were to gather up enough signatures they could have a petition that would force an election in November 2020.
“The community does have an opportunity to disfavor an appointment,” he said. “Under the Ed Code you need a number of registered voters equal to 1.5 percent of the number of the registered voters present at the last election…”
Moreover, by putting the matter to a vote in November, the cost to the district would be reduced to about $30,000 rather than the $100,000 cited for a special election. The voters have 30 days to do this however. The process would be governed by the county superintendent of schools.
Cindy Pickett clarified, “I didn’t have a problem with the process per se, it was just the choice.” She noted that, at the time they made the decision, “there were good reasons” for them not to put
it on the ballot.
The problem, she said, was with appointments in general.
“They may or may not reflect the will of the voters,” she said. “In this case, there was the assumption by some voters that the board would actually think in terms of racial diversity in addition to gender diversity.” She added, “People’s expectations were just not met.”
The original decision, however, was made on May 21—that was before the death of George Floyd and before the country, including Davis, erupted with protests, riots, and marches.
“There is greater awareness,” Cindy Pickett said. “I think there is also a greater willingness for people to voice their dissatisfaction.”
She noted that qualifications have a component of privilege and bias.
She said, “You think, how did people get that experience? What doors were opened that allowed that person to be… PTA President? Then you go back from there. The system, I think.
“I think we operate in a system that gives opportunities to certain people,” said Pickett, who does not believe there are bad intentions here. “If you look at the surface you say, wow, this is the choice that you should go with.”
The choice becomes embedded within a system that is set up to advantage some people over others, and creates the perception of qualification that is itself embedded within that privilege.
She said, “I think that’s an area of disappointment too for some residents—there was not a recognition of the system, the systemic injustice.”
The student body is now nearly evenly split with around 52 percent of the students being white—but 48 percent of students from communities of color. However, with this appointment the board is now all white.
Cindy Pickett was philosophical on this point.
On the one hand, she said, “I certainly think any board member could certainly voice or share an opinion that’s derived from a certain segment of the Davis population. There’s nothing preventing board members from bringing different viewpoints to the table.”
The problem, she said, is that “it’s not the most accessible thing” or “at the top of their radar.
“We talk about the things we’re used to talking about,” she pointed out. But there is also the issue of “lived experience,” and she said “knowing what it feels like when your child hears a racial slur against them and how a certain response to that can seem like silencing or ignoring the problem.”
She said knowing how it feels to be in that situation does change the attributes that you bring to the table.
Despite this, Cindy Pickett said her now-former colleagues “are doing their best.”
She cited a quote from the poet Maya Angelou, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
“There’s no blame or ill-will,” she said. “It should be a learning experience.”
Her colleagues need to understand the circumstances of this moment in time and hopefully learn from those circumstances.
But the possibility of redress seems to have settled some of this for Cindy Pickett.
“I applaud Joy’s willingness to serve, I think she has been great in that role. It’s really not about her about at all, it’s about trying to bring more diverse voices to the board.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Asked before, and unanswered thus far:
Is that determined based on district-wide (which was how the last election was done), or by the new districts? Which district would ‘have the opening’?
As explained previously the seat was originally filled in 2018 under the old rules and therefore will remain an at-large seat until 2022.
Thx… wouldn’t have hurt to reiterate that… wasn’t clear that would be the case with a vacated seat, mid-term, if the vacancy were to filled by an election…
Indeed. Also happens to white kids quite often, in some schools.
This actually proves the point being made here. The lack of understanding between the difference between discrimination and systemic racism.
I’m describing something that’s exactly the same. Including the response. There’s no such thing as “reverse” racism. There’s only one type.
You’re describing something else.
You’re not describing the exact same thing. More importantly of what relevance is it to the situation at DJUSD that we are talking about? You’ve simply inserted this into the discussion to throw a monkey wrench into discussing the actual situation in Davis, right now.
Look at the quote. It’s exactly the same thing.
You’re attributing a motive to me that I’ve neither expressed, nor possess.
There’s a statement which implies that only people of color (and presumably, only “some” colors) experience this. This type of statement is expressed repeatedly (elsewhere, as well).
It’s a politically-biased lie (though I’m not attributing that part to anyone in particular).
Ron is correct here but David doesn’t like it because it doesn’t fit the agenda.
It doesn’t apply to Davis, so why bring it up unless you are trying to divert the discussion?
Actually, it might. For example, if a “white” person on the board had experienced it in their youth (e.g., prior to living in Davis).
But truth be told, I don’t think you have to personally experience it – to understand it.
Those with a particular point of view essentially “deny” that it occurs, or actively downplay it (when it occurs to “white” people). I’ve witnessed that repeatedly – even (or especially?) on here.
And just about the ONLY form of racism that those students experience anywhere…
The real agenda should be, should there be an election or not, given more than a half-term remaining, for whatever reason, and are there 1.5% of voters from last election willing and able to sign a petition in time.
Individuals may have varied (or, ‘diverse’) reasons for wanting an election, vs. an appointment…… one I can think of is giving an appointee a ‘leg up’ in the 2022 election… would have been an easier call if the appointee committed to not running in 2022. That reason I could support, regardless of reasons stated in the article…
It appears Ms Pickett had no problem with the process, until the process resulted in an outcome she didn’t like… so, she now supports a “Plan B” as to process… she is not alone… suspect DG and many others that is true for, as well…
Actually if you listen to the June 4 conversation she said at that point she was increasingly uncomfortable with the process but she was talked into it, in part because she still had the recourse.
Still, I gets to issue #1″:
‘Nuff said…
Remember that argument when it comes to the repeal of Measure J/R… Measure J/R is not necessary, due to the recourse of a referendum… hold that thought…
Also begs the question, WHO talked her into it?
Perhaps it would be better to listen to the discussion.
http://davis.granicus.com/player/clip/1148?view_id=4
Start about 58 minutes in…
David.. I watched the entire item… am synthesizing, but WOW!
Fernandes motion to go the appointment route failed for lack of second… the motion for election got a second, but Adams and Fernandes opposed… motion failed (which begs the question, why did not Adams second Fernandes’ motion?)…
Fernandes argued many speculative reasons for his motion, which I considered ‘bogus’.
He ‘won the day’ after a lot of discussion, much of which was based on “what if’s”. 4-0-1 (recused)
The DJUSD website does not include the terms for the current Board…
I saw the “dark under-belly” of DJUSD Board considerations… will next check the voting on the screening, and the final vote… Fernandes insisted his position for appointment was to ensure gender and ethnic diversity… question is, did he vote that way? Either time… was the eventual appointee one of his votes both times? Coincidence?
I’ll look it up… something sniffs.
I am inclined, after seeing the discussion, to NOT vote for Fernandes, nor Adams (assuming one of them ends up in my district), and may consider mounting a recall if one or both of them are “safe” in 2020. The record shows, in the longer discussion, that Pickett was pushing for appointment, gently… perhaps she thought she could count to 3, if a female, person-of-color applied for appointment.
Also will not vote for the appointee, if she runs in 2022 in my district.
Again, something “sniffs”…
But thank you, David, for the link… I suggest all those with time and inclination view it, in its entirety… the time link for the beginning of the item was ~ 35 min…
I believe that the “assumption” was that Cindy Picket would (likely) serve out her term. Had voters known that she was seeking employment elsewhere, they might not have voted for her in the first place. It could be that a (*gasp*) “white” person would have won, instead. God help us, if that person also might have been “male”.
Personally, I think that seeking employment elsewhere is not an unreasonable thing to do, even if elected to a school board. The reason being that employment in some fields is more limited, in some fields. And, one never knows where one might be hired, in such cases.
But it appears that others might not agree (e.g., “Have fun in your new life in Chicago”).
Strange, how the focus on these things gets away from the best interests of the kids (as if a “white” person would necessarily make worse decisions, e.g., for students of color).
“Given” that they’ve “never” experienced racism, and all. 😉
The issue is precisely the best interest of the kids and the need for diverse communities, especially marginalized ones to have representation on the board.
Again, that’s putting forth an assumption that’s not supported.
It’s a political argument, that one needs to be a person of color (supposedly, the “right colors”) to adequately represent others within the scope of one’s duties. I don’t buy it.
Regardless, a lot of the arguments put forth in the article above relate to “career/experience” opportunities, for those elected to the board. Nothing to do with the kids.
“Again, that’s putting forth an assumption that’s not supported. It’s a political argument.”
That’s what this whole thing about – what you are calling an assumption that’s not supported. That’s why Cindy is upset. It’s why a lot of other people are upset. It is why we are likely going have an election on this. Perhaps you as a 60-something year old white man without children isn’t in the best position to judge.
Tried to add: Just as I don’t buy into the argument that one needs to have a particular gender, sexual orientation, disability status, etc. – to represent others.
Wow – I just saw this racist and ageist statement:
Are you sure that you want to go there?
The more I participate on here, the more I see the “unapologetic” intolerance of some of those on the left. Do you honestly feel no shame in this type of statement? Or, do you think you’re safe in doing so, given the political leanings of some of those on here?
What a jerk. (Don’t delete this, as should see.)
I can see you’ve completely lost sight of the point here. You objected to the notion about representation as being unsupported but are not in the position to judge because you haven’t faced the situation either as a parent or a parent of children of color. As you can see, Cindy and others who are in a very different position from you feel very differently from you. My comment was simply pointing that out. You’ve taken it much more broadly than it was written.
And so much fragility to a mild comment? Imagine how you would react to someone calling you the N-word every single day of your life.
Oh, I forgot “sexist”, as well.
How embarrassing for you.
I’m not the one who made that comment.
Your other “points” are a deflection, and have already been addressed.
I suspect that many of your readers are likely in the “category” you describe, or have children who have “aged out” of the system.
You’re doubling-down on something that you probably should avoid. I’ve experienced racism, both verbally and physically. And, have witnessed it plenty of other times.
Are you still suggesting that a “white male” cannot understand it?
I’m suggesting you’re not in a position to know… And I’m also suggesting that you are overreacting to a factual and mild comment when people of color have to deal with pejoratives on a daily basis. And I think you haven’t given sufficient thought to that either.
I think you have your head so far up your “political arse” that you deny what occurs in and around public schools (e.g., outside of Davis). Also on some public transit systems, or if one happens to venture into the wrong neighborhood.
And, that there’s no practical difference when a white person is attacked, based upon the color of their skin. (Which is primarily what occurs, in some school systems/locations.) In those situations, I guarantee you that your example of using the “n-word” isn’t going to fly, even once.
To suggest that a “white” person cannot understand or experience racism is a politically-based lie. That is what I am reacting to. Ultimately, that lie also undermines arguments of those with your particular point of view.
You don’t get it and you’re not going to get it. But again Think about how strongly you are reacting to my comment and recognize how much worse people of color have to face than that.
Yet another b.s., dismissive comment, often from those with your particular point of view.
It’s not a “contest”, though the situations I’ve seen and experienced would put that to the test.
Again, what I’m reacting to is the DENIAL, by some with your point of view. I’ve seen this repeatedly. Those who buy into that denial are the ones who “don’t get it”, and apparently never will.
But, I will say that I have no tolerance for discrimination regardless of skin color, gender, gender identification, sexual orientation, disability status, etc. (For some reason, those with your political point of view seem to purposefully “leave out” some “categories”, as well.)
Ron O.
I’m also a 60-something white man (but with children out of the house). I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to believe that I could fully represent the views and experiences of another ethnic group that has faced four centuries to bias and discrimination. I can listen very closely and try to understand what they are saying, and if I think what they are saying makes sense, supporting what they are asking for. But if I was a representative, I would still be filtering their voices through my own lived experience rather. Instead, someone from that group could be expressing that directly.
What’s really at issue here is that certain ethnic groups in our society have been denied a significant direct voice in critical discussions. Their requests have mostly gone through filters like you and me. And this can’t be fixed simply by asking 60 year old white men to listen more carefully and somehow change their filters. We need, at least for a while, deliver unfiltered voices to the discussion if we are going to make a good attempt at fixing what ills our society.
I think that Hiram Jackson would be an outstanding addition to the board. He would bring those life experiences that have been mentioned, he is qualified, and in his occasional comments on the Vanguard over the years he has emphasized the lack of communication between the district and the Latinx community that is disproportionately present in South Davis schools. That communication is going to be especially important as the district navigates the pandemic and reopening this fall.
I hope he chooses to run for an open seat at the earliest opportunity.
To quote David:
Though, I guess you’d (partly) qualify.
Now that I look at that quote more closely, I see that David actually missed the mark, anyway. He “swung for the fences”, and missed.
David’s comment should be deleted, for his own reputation.
By the way, once your children are beyond school age, would you no longer qualify to weigh in?
How about Hiram, as well?
Not speaking for David, but as a taxpayer I have an interest in the management of the local schools, as an employer I have an interest in their quality, and as a citizen I think that we should all support good educational outcomes for all students. Having had a child who benefited from particular programs such as special ed and GATE, I have an interest that those be maintained and supported by the district.
Hiram can speak for himself. But having made many contributions to MME over the years and worked with volunteers there, I can say that his family has been a clear asset to that school on a volunteer basis.
(Probably a good idea, regarding David’s comment in particular.)
I concur that Hiram would be a good thoughtful Board member. I hope he runs as well. (Although I don’t think he’s quite 60 yet. ;^) I first met him in Golden Valley Harriers 20 years ago.)
I watched the school board deliberations and it was clear to me who I would have picked. When Fulp-Cook spoke about the many African American faculty who remain committed to UCD but take their kids out of DJUSD the refs should have called the fight and declared her the champ. Her description of the remedy, the need for the school board to listen to minority communities, was clear and on the mark. She was the most qualified candidate to address the loss of enrollment from this sad reality.
Is that right? Where do they end up sending their kids?
If this is true, then the school district does have a very serious problem.
A question, though. Can a “person of color” necessarily represent other “persons of color” – who are nevertheless of a different color? I have no idea what color any particular person is, until (perhaps) I see a photograph or meet them. Though sometimes a name provides some indication.
What you’re describing goes far beyond “listening” as a “remedy”.
This would be a significant news story, in-and-of itself.
Are any of these UCD faculty members coming forward, to claim this? If so, I’d definitely suggest that the broader media would be interested.
Its been going on for years. Its common knowledge in the local African American community. I remember after Trevon Martin was killed learning about black kids in Davis whose parents would send them to private schools in Sacramento. How long ago was that?
Fulp-Cook also addressed how the school board could engage with all under represented communities by seeking them out and listening to their concerns. She didn’t claim to represent every group but offered a way forward that was inclusive.
It was 2012 when we had a meeting at City Hall and dozens of parents of communities of color came out to tell us about the story of how their children were treated in the school district. Some of his stories dated back 10 to 20 years previously.
You’re stating that “many” African-American faculty pulled their kids out of DJUSD (and sent them to private school in Sacramento), when Trevon Martin was killed? What is the claimed connection regarding that incident, and pulling kids out of Davis schools?
Again, something like this would normally be “big news”, and would appear somewhere other than a political blog. With actual names/examples of parents who claim it.
Is DJUSD really that dysfunctional and racist? (Does the school board know about this? And, why are we giving teachers raises, in such an environment?)
For that matter, aren’t private schools generally full of “white people”, for lack of a better word? In comparison to DJUSD, are they much less “racist”?
Again, what you’re describing is a very serious problem, well-beyond simple “listening”. Seems to me that it’s a potential legal matter, probably with many attorneys more than willing to pursue the claim. (Assuming that hasn’t been pursued, why not?)
Parsing Ron G’s comment:
No, that was when Ron G learned about it.
Also:
No, it wouldn’t be big news. That’s the point.
Pursue what claim? That their kids were having bad experiences in Davis schools?
Ron, please read “White Fragility” — its by a white author, so it may resonate — its an excellent description and explanation of what you seem to be feeling and your concerns, and it may be somewhat enlightening. Read with an open mind, and please, do so before commenting further…. it will inform the discussion, hopefully, at a different level.
I don’t think that reading a suggested book on “white fragility” is a requirement for commenting on here.
I can tell you that my body experienced some “fragility” when I was physically attacked, based upon the color of my skin. And, my psyche was impacted by being called a “white boy” many times, in a threatening manner (without any recourse via the school system). (Some of the incidents that come to mind.) I could provide more examples of what I experienced and witnessed, but it seems to fall on deaf ears here.
I’ll refrain from expressing any anger toward you, for that insensitive comment. But, it’s actually a PERFECT example of what I’m referring to, regarding denial.
Now, if you have an actual point to make, I will listen.
Ron G was (apparently) told about it. Who (exactly) is claiming this?
I doubt that. (Goes to the credibility of this blog, and the political biases on here.)
The claim being that Davis schools were so racist that African-American parents were forced to send their kids to private schools. With some unexplained connection to the Trevon Martin incident.
Sounds like a potential lawsuit to me, or some mixture of b.s. and reality.
Remind me again why teachers are getting raises in such a claimed racist institution? And, what the board (regardless of the color of their skin) is doing about it?
And why (other than on a political blog with an agenda) we don’t hear about this in actual news sources?
Ron O
Was your family better off economically than the average, median or typical family of students in the ethnic group that confronted you? Do you think that their attitude towards you might have been born of resentment, either of your socioeconomic status in particular, or of their view of the dominant culture in our society? And you happened to be the convenient target for that resentment? Were you denied opportunities or services in your school because you are white? Were you steered into less desirable classes and programs because you were white? Were you pulled over in your car for “driving while white”? Were you followed around in the local stores by employees or owners?
Being targeted by other students because you’re different isn’t desirable, no matter who you are. (I was bullied for a while in my younger years of school.) But trying to compare your experience as being equivalent to what has happened in particular to Black students is a false comparison. That’s why you’re not getting any traction here, and why the complaints of white men supposedly facing “discrimination” in general are falling on deaf ears.
Let’s see – getting physically attacked (and injured), experiencing constant threats to my safety, being subjected to racial slurs, with no recourse from dysfunctional institutions.
Yeah, no comparison.
Your use of quotes is yet another example of the purposeful downplaying of these incidents.
Sorry, but I’m not going to back down on this. It’s political bullsh*t, and it’s harmful.
I wasn’t part of the “dominant culture” in that “society”. Not sure what assumptions occurred (and frankly it wasn’t at the top of my list of concerns at those moments), but I’d call that straight-out racism.
But getting back to how this relates to the article, I’d say that white people have experienced racism, and can understand it quite well.
Just as we can all understand what occurs with anyone who is viewed “differently” than the dominant culture (e.g., LGBT community, disabled, etc.). Whether or not one is actually a member of such “groups”.
By the way, I strongly suspect that males (among themselves, and in general) experience a different level of violence than females, though males also inflict that upon females.
But if you really want to explore this topic, one might also discuss racism between different groups of “color”. With nary a white person to be found (or somehow “blamed”), in such examples. Though I’m sure that some politically-agendized people might “find” a way to do so.
Alternatively, one might look at how different groups of color view the LGBT community even (or especially?) if their skin color matches their own. This is very similar to racism.
Bottom line is that I haven’t seen racism (or awareness of it) limited to any particular group.
I just realized rather late (probably due to both of us being “white”, and all) that this is an incredibly tone-deaf statement, according to what was reported.
Then again, we don’t know what actual incidents occurred, which forced some African-American faculty members to send their kids to private schools, other than the “Trevon Martin” incident. Nor do we know who is claiming this, or what the school district did about it.
Now THAT is something I’d like to hear more about.
And hopefully, no one would then claim that it’s due to their “fragility”, or some “justification” due to commonly-held views (otherwise known as racism) toward their “group”.
Well, to her great credit Cindy was the only DJUSD board member to engage with my issues of the age-discriminatory bike share system, which disproportionately affects lower-income families and therefore becomes racist against teenagers, and the lack of a school bus system, which – again – affects families in the same way, making it more difficult for their children to participate in the district’s non-geographical catchment and other options, including Montessori at Birch Lane Elementary.
The City has no bike share system, at the moment. The majority of the board refused to even consider doing a study about bringing back buses. (Unitrans serves DJUSD locations but the system is not appropriate for students under 5th grade or so who are not capable of travelling indendently in town…).
Now that situation that resulted in the appointment and related issues are getting more attention, I hope that the Board gets involved in these two manifestations of equitable mobility.
I remember this so well. It was July 13, 2014. The day George Zimmerman was acquitted in the murder of Trayvon Martin. I received a text to show up at a black church in Davis. I guess they got my info by signing up on a mailing list at Juneteenth at the Library. My family was out of town so I went. It was quite illuminating for me to sit there and listen.
Much can be learned by listening to people. I guess that was Fulp-Cook’s point.
The coolest thing that happened was this young woman came up to me and asked if I was me. It was my neighbors kid from 30 years earlier and 300 miles away. She had earned a PhD in nursing and was recently hired at Betty Moore. The scene was me and the black intelligentsia of Davis. In addition to my old friend was the ex-police chief, the retired high school teacher, the thermodynamics professor, the nursing professor, the NSF member who saved the cattle industry in Africa by inventing a vaccine as well as some others I didn’t know. They were all worried about their kids some of whom were there.
It was a free wheeling conversation and during it I became aware that many of these kids had been taken out of DJUSD and sent to private school in Sacto where they were treated better and felt safer.
When I heard Fulp-Cook describe the same phenomenon happening now I knew it was a real ongoing problem. When I heard her remedy I knew that an all white school board would never be able to implement it.
Don was correct Trayvon provided me a benchmark of awareness.
That sounds more like an indictment of the public school system (regardless of color), as I suspect most students in the private school system are “white”. And yet, those African-American students were apparently treated better, there.
There are certainly some societal problems regarding racism, and how the world is viewed. Look at the difference between the races, regarding the OJ Simpson verdict. (I witnessed some of that difference in person, and was somewhat amused by it. It did not upset me, nor did I feel any personal “stake” – one way or another.)
As a side note (in regard to the rest of your comment), isn’t George Zimmerman partly of Hispanic origin?
“Then again, we don’t know what actual incidents occurred, which forced some African-American faculty members to send their kids to private schools, other than the “Trevon Martin” incident. Nor do we know who is claiming this, or what the school district did about it.”
Its not a we statement. You should be using the first person I. There are plenty of people who understand the who, what, when, where, why and how behind this. Sadly they aren’t heard or represented by our current school board. The board had a chance to open the door to them but failed.
Fair enough – I know nothing about it other than what you’re stating. Keeping in mind that I’m generally not involved with the school district, other than expressing concerns about the impact of the city “revolving” around its desires.
For what it’s worth, I believe there was (and perhaps still is), a problem. Sounds like you do, as well. (By the way, aren’t you “white”, and are nevertheless sensitive to the problem? I’ve seen you in person. Now, please don’t tell me that you’re Jewish, and are therefore not “white”, as I’d rather not explore that subject any further here.)
“Look at the difference between the races, regarding the OJ Simpson verdict. (I witnessed some of that difference in person, and was somewhat amused by it. It did not upset me, nor did I feel any personal “stake” – one way or another.)”
Dude, do you ever stop to listen to yourself? Two people are brutally murdered and you were amused and not upset. Wow.
I wasn’t amused by the murder. I was amused because I saw an African-American person (whom I knew) “smile” slightly, when the verdict was read. Then, I observed a white person (whom I also knew) who wasn’t smiling. Actually, several white people. Something I’ll never forget.
It happened to occur that way, in the situation I was in. A true story, that I don’t think I’ve ever shared, previously.
It was at that moment that I really saw how differently the world is sometimes viewed.
I didn’t feel any personal stake one way or another regarding that incident.
I don’t know who you’re referring to, but I am neither of those things.
Neither do I. Nor do I claim to represent any particular group – even my “own”, to some degree.
Though I will tell you that no one has actually been alive for “four centuries”. However, I realize that the impact of the past has a direct influence on the present and future.
Everyone who is a representative is actually listening to others, and is filtering everything they hear through their own experiences (to some degree). However, it’s not too difficult to understand someone else, when they tell you that they’ve experienced. If you open your eyes, you can actually see it (without necessarily being part of that group). A good example is the LEGAL discrimination and hostility that’s been permitted against the LGBT community, for example. One does not have to be a member of that group (or of a particular color) to see and understand what occurs.
Well, maybe “you”. I don’t make such claims. Nor would I claim to represent my “own” group. And as I’ve experienced on here, even those in my own “group” (or close enough to that group) don’t seem to believe what I say, at times. They seem to be “filtering” it through their own political lens.
Frankly, I don’t believe that “understanding” is based upon skin color (or even necessarily personal life experiences).
David…
Asking for an opinion… based on previous articles, it unclear (and feel no pressure to answer) whether the word “could” or “should” be in the title…
After watching the cite you gave me/us, I weigh in on the “should” side… but don’t know how to begin the petition process… or, if “that train already left the station”…
If the latter, I wonder if that was ‘the plan’… at least from one Board member… still going thru the second set of interviews and discussion, but Hiram and Vigdis had unanimity as to proceeding to the final round… two had 3 votes…
And to be very clear, Ms Pickett did the right thing by obstaining (recusing) from the votes, but did not recuse herself from presiding on the issue nor comment, which from the Board President, with the implied power, she did… normally, when one recuses themselves from an item, they do not participate at all… they usually absent the chamber (and definitely do not preside, or remain on the dais… but, what has happened, has happened… but perhaps DJUSD doesn’t see it the same as Davis CC, on their issues…
Correction… (shot clock kicked in early)
Sidebar… shot clock seems to be sensitive to poster ID, and/or key words… had nearly 3 min. left…
By the way, every bit of this is completely “irrelevant“, regarding what I’ve described. When I hear this (almost always from “white” people), I view it as a politically-influenced “justification”, from those with a particular point of view.
Oddly enough, it’s from the same group who claim that “understanding” corresponds to those with identical skin color. Essentially proving that this isn’t true.
This is entirely different from acknowledging that such examples occur. Of that, I have no doubt.
One last comment (regarding “white fragility”, and the book that was suggested.
I started skimming the following synopsis, and honestly don’t think it applies regarding what I put forth. In fact, I don’t feel the following type of statements apply to me, at all. I have no problems talking about it, nor do I feel particularly “defensive”, except when other (primarily “white”) people deny what occurs, based upon what I perceive as a particular political point of view.
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-examines-the-white-fragility-that-prevents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism
I am not color-blind for example, and am fully aware of it. Especially before I know a person, individually. (At that point, I tend to have less focus on it.)
The book explains systemic racism, it explains why your experiences are not analagous to the experience of marginalized people, reading a synopsis is not the same as reading a book.
The book appears to be referring to those who have some sort of defensive/denial reaction in a manner which I haven’t put forth, per the quoted section.
Those with your point of view seem intent upon “marginilizing” race-based attacks that occur to white people, and perhaps race-based attacks that occur between “marginilized” groups. If that’s what the book also attempts to do, I haven’t seen the logic or reason for doing so, other than justifying a political agenda.
This also reminds me of how those with your political point of view will sometimes include Asians as “people of color” (when it suits their argument), but will exclude Asians when it doesn’t.
Go ahead and tell me how race-based attacks are somehow “different” when they occur to white people. Because despite all of the comments attempting to downplay it, not one person has actually explained that. Plenty of condescending comments, though.
Has to do with power differential.
There certainly was. But, that’s exactly what I was pointing out.
From the book, great example was women’s suffrage movement.
When women sought the vote they had absolutely no political power. The only way they could gain the vote was for men to give it to them.
“While women could be prejudiced and discriminate against men in individual interactions, women as a group could not deny men their civil rights. But men as a group could and did deny women their civil rights. Men could do so because they controlled all the institutions. Therefore, the only way women could gain suffrage was for men to grant it to them; women could not grant suffrage to themselves.”
That is the fundamental difference between the two. This is the key point that you are missing in your discourse.
A better analogy would be, “decades after women got the right to vote, groups of them would go around beating white men, in response.”
I think you need to do more reading. You are looking at interactions individual-level events rather than looking at the structure of power. Even now men control the power structure. Whites control the power structure. And the advantage in both cases is institutionalized.
I’m not denying that, but view it as a different issue. It is related.
All race-based attacks are racism, and occur on an individual level.
In some ways, what you’re pointing out is similar to the “justification” used to arrest people of color (at a disproportionately high rate).
And the point here is that there is a fundamental difference between individual level hatred – and is again a key point of discussion in the book – versus understanding the power structure. Basically she is implicitly arguing that all racism isn’t made the same because of power to deny civil rights at the systemic level. That’s the key to this discussion.
I already understood that. But again, that hatred always manifests itself on an individual level.
“Systems” do not hate people.
Systems do not hate people, but they do create the kinds of inequity we see in the country which perpetuates the hate you are concerned with.
you must be unfamiliar with Fanagel’s Hypothesis that inanimate objects are out to get us
Not disagreeing, but there’s enormous differences in equity around the world, which don’t necessarily result in hatred. There are parts of the world that are much, much poorer than the worst-off in the United States (without corresponding hatred).
I believe there’s more to it than simple inequity. There is culture and systems that work to perpetuate and intensify that hatred.
“Not disagreeing, but there’s enormous differences in equity around the world, which don’t necessarily result in hatred. ”
First of all, I disagree with you – I think they. Those intensify as you get into closer proximity. And I also think you ought to view your incident as a function of the extent that your attacks saw you are their oppressor rather than as an individual person.
I think some wording got left out of your quote.
But again, I’d disagree that inequities (e.g., in wealth) necessarily create hatred on its own. There are very poor people around the world who live in peace, without media to tell them who they should hate.
Another word for that is racism, based upon false beliefs (on an individual level). Not unlike those 3 guys who tried to “arrest” that guy they shot. The difference being in that case, those guys might have actually believed they were doing the “right thing”.
You disagree but there’s actually a pretty substantial thread of research on this. Again I suggest you start doing research rather than simply reacting and arguing
Here’s a quick article that you can read: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/higher-rates-of-hate-crimes-are-tied-to-income-inequality/
I’m not real interested in doing more work to “prove” whatever you’re trying to argue. (So far, I already haven’t been impressed by the book synopsis, regarding “white fragility”.
If you have a point to make, then do so.
By the way, it takes more than one to “react and argue”. Have you ever heard the sound of one hand clapping?
I do have a question for you, though. In your view, can a “person of color” even engage in a “hate crime”, against a person of “no-color”? Or, is that only reserved for persons of no color?
Also, what might you call it when a person of color attacks another person of color, based upon that color?
And for that matter, what “color” do you think Asians are, in terms of your arguments?
I did start skimming through the article you posted (kind of busy today).
Regardless, it does raise another question: In addition to your view, is the author of that article only counting hate crimes committed by persons of no color? In other words, does he/she believe the same thing as you, regarding that?
As a side note, a political agenda is on full display whenever someone tries to “lump in” all persons of color into one category, AND with “changing membership” depending upon what one is attempting to prove. This appears to be a purposeful attempt to create an artificial separation and division between “persons of color”, vs. “persons of no color”. And, the world (including racial problems) doesn’t actually work that way, except in the minds of those with an agenda.
Not just a ‘hypothesis’, but a demonstrable fact! Ex.: Most runners know that if you casually try to hurdle over a cable, chain or rope, across your path of travel, the thing will rise up to trip you… [Dad warned me about that (he ran low hurdles in HS)]… over the years, the number of times this has actually happened to folk, resulting in sprains, strains, broken patellas, and/or ‘road rash’, is overwhelming proof that the hypothesis is true!
The “deniers” claim it isn’t, citing, lack of good eye/foot coordination, etc., but, by definition, they are “in denial”…
“I did start skimming through the article you posted (kind of busy today)”
Not too busy to post nine times so far, though, huh?
Lol.
Checked back to see if there was any value to be had, but nope. I’ve already looked up a synopsis, in response to another condescending comment. What “value” have you added – other than this:
Also –
Regardless, I’d sure like to see what David has to say, regarding the following. Pretty sure I can figure out your views, even without a response:
Ten! Your workload must have lightened.
Ron O. there are 89 posts so far on this thread. Forty of them are yours. That is around 45%. Most of what you have written has demonstrated, more than anything, your lack of understanding. Several comments have tried to get you to have some reflection like when I asked if you ever stop to listen to yourself? I’m not trying to be rude or disrespectful but do you realize how embarrassing many of your posts read? I don’t know if you are being a troll or not, and you do make an easy foil for discussion, yet again, perhaps you might try to reflect more on what people are telling you.