The New Plessy versus Ferguson and White Privilege

There is something odious about privilege. In this case, white privilege.

On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled in Parents Involved in Community Schools versus Seattle School District No.1 that using race as the sole criterion for assigning children to one elementary school or another violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the plurality of the Court set down their ruling is ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Kevin Doyle Jones
3.7
by Kevin Doyle Jones - Oct. 1, 2008

"Privileged people never see the connection between their power and the powerlessness of others. " If you agree with this statement from the story, then this commentary will make some sense to you. if not, it will not.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Peter Henry
4.6
by Peter Henry - Oct. 1, 2008

Commentary on recent supreme court ruling which threw out a race-based "tiebreaker" used to determine if a child would get into his/her preferred school. The commentator writes from the viewpoint of "white privilege," whereby a white person's inherent advantages in society are invisible to him/herself because they haven't had the personal experience of having to combat pernicious effects of discrimination in their own personal lives. The original justification of affirmative action was to "level the playing field" and help correct decades of de jure and de facto race-based discrimination. This approach has been defeated because it requires a favored group of people to identify and reject their own preferences - which most ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
4.0
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Joe Silverman
1.1
by Joe Silverman - Oct. 1, 2008

if you disagree with the POV of the author, you are (automatically) a racist.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Carl Pham
1.0
by Carl Pham - Oct. 1, 2008

This is an informal opinion piece, not a news story, but even as such it's remarkably intellectually threadbare. For example, the author says (1) "Instead [the Supreme Court] construe[d] the 14th Amendment solely as a guarantee of each person's right to equal protection under the law," and then three sentences later: (2) "[This] is a cleaner kill of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection for African-Americans than was Plessy." Got that? Reading the 14th Amendment as ("solely") a guarantee of equal protection under the law means denying blacks equal protection under the law. Er...huh? Maybe you need to be on drugs (or in the fierce grip of ideology) to understand why that's a Deep Insight instead of mere brainless ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Anthony Martin Dambrosi
5.0
by Anthony Martin Dambrosi - Oct. 1, 2008

That's right. If you disagree with the facts that the author presents then you are not only a racist but support racism. If you are white then you are in the right 99.99% of the time. You don't have to actively be a racist to in fact get a benefit from being a white person. That's what White Privilege means. Everyone else swims against an Institutionalized Tide because they fall into the other .01%. This is a great article demonstrating that social progress does not occur in a straight line in the wake of this new right wing court's rollback of gains paid for in blood.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Average
from 10 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.5
Facts
3.5
Fairness
2.9
Information
3.4
Sourcing
2.7
Style
4.5
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
3.0
Context
3.9
Popularity
3.4
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!