Gah, how depressing! Maybe it will backfire, and the majority of students in Seattle will be government hating free-thinkers because they learned at an early age to challenge authority.

I think you're right, and you reminded me of a post I wrote about expressing sentiments along similar lines:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001873.html

Time flies!

Eric: As you know, I was a teacher, and I can shed some light on the "future time orientation" nonsense for you.

At my new-employee orientation, I was informed that poor people and minorities tend to think of time in terms of the present tense and don't do any future planning because they tend not have the means, whereas "the wealthy" (i.e. white people) think in terms of the future tense because they have the means to plan.

How what I've just described is not objectively racist is beyond my humble grasp. I almost had to break my neck to try to twist my head around that.

On FTO, I can think of two things. One, future time orientation would probably view technology and accompanying changes as important. If individualism is racist, so is technology.

Two, and perhaps more important, if we focus on the future, we spend less time focusing on slavery and Jim Crow, and that's racist. Obviously.

I think it boils down to that. The future is seen as individualist, high-tech, and capitalist; or, in other words, racist. And thinking about it makes people devote less processor time to the really important issues, like what people who look liked one student did to people who looked like the other before either was born.

My penny and a half.

The Seattle school district has a nasty, insane message for budding entrepreneurs, civil libertarians, and free market conservatives: your belief in individual rights or individual initiative brands you as a racist.

The Seattle Public Schools define individualism as a form of “cultural racism,” declaring that “cultural racism” includes “emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology.”

On their web site, they also define racism to include stereotypically white traits such as “future time orientation,” which is a pejorative word used for studying and “acting white” to reap future advancement, rather than devoting one’s energy to being hip or cool and enjoying the moment.

It is racist for the Seattle schools to stereotype achievement as a “white” characteristic. Plenty of non-whites study and exercise self-discipline. No school system should disparage student studying and achievement. That is at odds with a school system’s basic educational mission.

The Seattle schools also declare “equality” of treatment to be a form of racially-biased assimilation, favoring instead affirmative action in the form of “unequal treatment for those who have been disadvantaged over time,” to give historically oppressed groups “special programs and benefits.”

The “equality” they deride – the notion that “people who are the same in those respects relevant to how they are treated in those circumstances should receive the same treatment” – is the same notion of equal treatment whose infringement is the basis for a disparate-treatment discrimination lawsuit under the federal civil rights laws.

In an apparent conflict with federal law, the Seattle schools deny that whites can be the victims of racism. They define racism as limited to acts against groups that have “little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).”

By contrast, federal appeals courts routinely rule against institutions that fire or harass white employees, recognizing that whites can indeed be victims of racism. See, e.g., Bowen v. Missouri Department of Social Services (2002) (racial harassment of white employee by black co-worker); Taxman v. Board of Education (1996) (termination of white teacher instead of black teacher). And the Supreme Court held that racial discrimination against whites by local governments is generally illegal in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). Affirmative action can’t be used to justify terminating or harassing an employee.

The Seattle schools’ racist policy, which appears to condone unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation against whites, is on the web site of its Equity and Race Relations department, directed by Caprice Hollins, a politically-correct self-proclaimed multicultural “educator.” Some education.

It appears that the Seattle schools would rather spend their time teaching (and practicing) racism, rather than reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Oh, Good Lord.

Without future time orientation, there is no reason to have a school at all. Do they not think about graduation or passing a test when they set the schedule or agenda? When a child gets on a bus to go to school, are they thinking they might end up at the zoo or amusement park instead? If the school administrators do not think about the destination of the bus or the purpose of the lesson plans, then by their own standards they are a racist institution. Close them, using their own standards.

I just noticed this. It says, "identifying only Whites as great writers or composers." But, it doesn't seem to care about identifying, say, only Whites as great scientists. Or, am I missing something?

It seems these people view math, science, individualism, and the future, as racist.

Therefore, a mathematics professor in a spaceship talking about Hayek's beliefs, in the 22nd century, would be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the equivalent of a Klan meeting.

Ok, as far as I see it, the Seatle Public Schools board is not saying that FTO is racist, they are saying that when FTO is CONSIDERED THE NORM, it can be a problem. Why? Well, just imagine a career counsellor (Mr C) speaks to a group of children. 50% are from affluent families (mostly white), 50% from ethnic families (mostly underpriveledge). Mr C notices that the majority of affluent kids have an idea of what they want to do, how to get there etc. The majority of underpriveledge kids don't really seem to have a clue, or at least haven't really thought about it? There are two possible conclusions: 1) ethinic kids are lazy/stupid/unable to plan or 2) because of the nature of their lives ethnic kids tend to live in the "now" and don't (can't) make plans for the future because of financial constraints etc. I suggest, that the Seatles Public Schools board is saying that the first conclusion is not only wrong, it is racist. I think they have a point.