I’m not sure that’s the case with respect to public education, overall. Moreover, the more relevant question is public education for blacks compared to the average. I suspect/hope that things have gotten better on that front, compared to the overall average for students. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining that education for blacks was better in the 70s, when compared to the general population, than the situation today.
Second piece moves: White House vetting Jane Kelly for SCOTUS.
Why is this a fun move?
Well, Mrs. Kelly is based in Iowa and is a highly respected member of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. She was unanimously approved after Chuck Grassley gave a glowing and effusive speech praising her work and credentials to the Senate in 2013. Kelly is a lifelong Iowan, and residents of the state are justifiably proud of her and her career.
That would be Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.
Who happens to be the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Who happens to be up for reelection this year.
I strongly approve of Obama’s nominee game here. There seems to be no lose condition here. Grassley backs her bid, GOP doesn’t completely fall in line, and the nomination may go through. They don’t move, and the heat gets turned up big time on a vulnerable Senator.
Probably next to impossible to quantify due to lack of hard stats across the nation. This was interesting, though: http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/black-white-higher-education-gap-larger-today-50-years-ago Very low high school graduation rates for blacks compared to today, so does that suggest those going on to law school were driven and bright or still struggling due to poor foundational academics?
In this toxic environment, we should not be surprised that “failed all black students” can mean “failed all the 2 black students in the almost all white cohort”. Both true statements but carry very different connotations.
Edit: big accusations should be backed up with good evidences and more information and disclosure.
Yeah I can’t imagine there were a ton of black students in his class at that point. That said, it wouldn’t surprise me that much if he failed them for “being black” either. And when I say “being black” I mean more of disagreeing with his point of view/whatever more so than him just looking at them and failing them based on it, though, again, I wouldn’t necessarily put it past him given who he was and the time period either. Too hard to say without verification of some sort.
That’s fair - is there a way to prove that?
I would still be concerned about the low graduation rate during that period though. You’d still end up with the same problem of too few people for too many slots.
Public schools were not much better decades ago. I went to public school decades ago. ;)
The real data that would be telling would be how many total students in his class, how many were Black, how many total failed and how many passed.
I had a professor in graduate school who was brilliant and a total arrogant ass. He delighted so much in failing most of the students in his class (for one major exam I took from him, 47 grad level students took the exam, and he delighted in the fact that only 4 passed.
I forgot when this all happened, need to look again. But I’d want to see more data to figure out if he truly failed Black students by rigging exams.
Here it comes!
CNN Breaking News @cnnbrk 35m35 minutes ago
Obama to announce Supreme Court nominee at 11 a.m. ET, White House says.
My bet is Srinivasan. Very well-regarded as a moderate. Would be first Asian on court. Approved by the Senate 97-0 for his current job. Only 49, so he could be there for decades.
CNN is saying Merrick Garland is the administrations pick.
Going to be hard for Hatch to say what a bad guy Garland is after praising him so much last time around.
It seems that the Republicans aren’t going to dispute Garland’s qualifications. They’re just going to say fuck Obama as usual.
So is Garland just taking one for the team here? The ®’s wont back down anyway, despite Garland being a pretty non-contentious pick.
Is there any precedent for whether Clinton picks her own nominee once she takes office, or carries forward Obama’s nominee? I would hope for the former, since Garland is pretty old and doesn’t add much to the diversity of the court, but maybe that’s the point for now.
President Trump will have the most luxurious high-quality premium Supreme Court nominee.
On NPR this morning, they were reporting on some possible backroom communication where Republicans said they would work to approve Garland during the lame duck session IF a Democrat wins in the Presidency. So, they like him, but not necessarily more than whoever a Republican would choose (and more than the uncertainty of whoever Clinton or Sanders would choose).
Well, to no one’s surprise, McConnell, the Amazing Turtle/Asshole Hybrid, responded with the expected refusal to consider Garland or any nominee before the election. 'Cuz Obama and what the R’s have taken to calling “The Biden Rule” (conveniently ignoring that the Senate at that time didn’t actually refuse to consider a nominee, nor was there a vacancy on the Court when Biden said those things).
He’s older than I would like at 63.
In the same spirit, Obama could propose that if his party wins the Presidency and regains control of the Senate, he will withdraw Garland from consideration and nominate himself instead.
That would be an epic troll.
Man, fuck McConnell.