The ACLU of So Cal along with two other groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of students at three of the city’s worst-performing middle schools contending that students were denied an adequate education.
At first bounce the suit seems a bit squishy. I mean, every city and county agency has been hit with layoffs and dreadful cutbacks. But we’re out of money people!
AND THEN YOU READ THE FINE PRINT and you understand why this suit is important and why, despite his appalling personal failings, John Edwards had it right when he talked about Two Americas.
Jason Song, at the LA Times has the rest of the story. Here are some clips:
The last round of L.A. Unified teacher firings led to chaotic conditions on some campuses that made learning nearly impossible, especially at Samuel Gompers, Edwin Markham and John H. Liechty middle schools, according to a complaint filed by the ACLU, Public Counsel and Morrison & Foerster. Between half and three-quarters [italics mine] of the teachers at those campuses were laid off last year, according to the class-action lawsuit filed in L.A. County Superior Court.
Because of a steep budget deficit, L.A. Unified officials issued thousands of layoff notices last year and are expected to order more this year. Citing state law, school districts typically dismiss teachers on the basis of seniority during budgetary shortfalls.
The cuts were especially devastating to Gompers, Markham and Liechty because administrators had recruited younger instructors who wanted to teach in the inner city. When those teachers were dismissed, they were often replaced by instructors who did not want to work in tough, urban schools, the suit alleges.
Many positions were also difficult to fill, so schools turned to substitutes, according to the lawsuit. Some of those teachers allowed the classes to turn chaotic or were unfamiliar with the subject matter. Several substitutes allegedly gave every student a “C” grade because they didn’t know the material well enough to grade students….
Since when is getting an education from the government a “civil liberty?” The answer: it is not. It has absolutely nothing to do with liberty (except the liberty of the taxpayers to discharge employees).
The suit clearly shows once again that the ACLU is a left-wing “social justice” advocacy organization which hides behind the “civil liberties” label in order to maintain a facade of credibility.
Why do you attempt to separate the idea of civil liberties and political leftism? Civil liberties are in fact a left wing social ideology. In fact, the opposite end of civil liberties on the social political spectrum is ORDER. Or, to put it in Sure Fire’s politically correct terms, “public safety”. Of course, civil liberties is something championed more by the civil rights groups of the ’60s to present day than it was by our founding fathers. The founding fathers were NOT interested in civil liberties. They didn’t even want women working, or blacks to be freed from slavery. What they were interested in was not letting the British boss them around.
John Moore, what are some of the things you’ve done on record in your adult life to champion civil liberties? Have you ever taken up any cause that fights for civil liberties of those whose civil liberties are violated most frequently? Do you believe in racial profiling by police?
Why don’t you explain racial profiling by the police Rob and than I’ll give you my take, cause profiling is a legitimate tool when used in the correct manner.
Racial profiling, as I understand it, is to assume that someone may commit a crime based on their race. It could be as blatant as believing that any random black person is more likely to commit a crime than a white person, or as subtle as believing a group of black kids in a majority white area must be up to something. Both are racial profiling. Now that I’ve explained racial profiling, could you explain what you mean by “the correct manner”?
Rob Thomas, what I have or have not done in my adult life has no relevance to my arguments, which are on what does and what does not constitute civil liberties.
If you went to the ACLU site you’d see the zillion or so examples they give of racial profiling and truthfully they’re full of shit. Think the ACLU doesn’t profile cops, of course they do? I profile everyone, we all do. You see a bunch of guys sporting Nazi type tats wearing wife beaters and boots you think they aren’t getting profiled Rob? I see a White guy in all Black area late at night where rock sales are known to take place I’m profiling that guy and will find a reason to stop him or start a consensual encounter.
The Black guy standing on the corner late at night in a high rock sales area, he’s getting profiled to and i will go out on him. The obvious gangsters at the 7-11 or the tweaked out looking girl at Wal-Mart, profiling her as well, along with the tweaked out looking clerk working there.
The only true profiling to me, that should be questioned, is the cop stopping the guy for no other reson than skin color, nothing else. Developing p.c. is easy to do and if you can articulate the legal reason for the stop where’s there a problem? The law gives cop lots of wiggle room, shouldn’t they take advantage of it? The few cops who don’t work in the correct manner, that are blatantly racist, are few and far between. The active gangster that’s behaving is much harder to find.
I profile people when I’m off duty to, I look at everyone it’s just a habit and I try to stay clear of idiots. Isn’t that what everyone does?
You know what hapens when people become too concerned with being politically correct and not profile possible problem people? Fort Hood.