The Instigator
flyboymaine
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Juris_Naturalis
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 358 times Debate No: 34040
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

flyboymaine

Pro

affirmative 1 In 1964 many kids started boycott
1 kids refuse to attened there school many kids got home school
2 kids started throwing eggs and other metarals at the buses which the black were on
3 kids and there parents started protesting around boston

affirmative 2 In 1974 court ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desgregated
1 blacks already tired different things but didint have enough money
2neighboohs were segragted and kids went to there neighboorhood schools
3 the parents still didnt had a choice by the court of law there had to bring both kids togther so now thats started a problem beteween the people and the court of law

affirmative 3 Race should be used as a basis for school assignment
1 justic sstephen breyer wrote down yess putting kids togther race would related a conflict
2 judge alex member of the arh circut started putting both black and whites togther which made him thinks that now one race have a power over a norther
3 the school districts went aginnist the 14s amendnt which said everyone is equal but the school still went agenst the law putting kids in different schools making it hard on not just the parents but the kids also
1
Juris_Naturalis

Con

Well, I can't quite understand the points you made except one about the 14th amendment.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws(1). With this text, forcing kids to go to different schools is not against the 14th amendment because they didn't deny them the privilege of going to school, they just simply didn't let them go to THAT ONE. They still had the privilege as citizens to go to school. I would also like to point out that due to location of the states, demographics will be different and it is virtually impossible to racially balance schools. I live in San Antonio Texas. The 2 largest demographics are caucasian and hispanics. I travel frequently all around San Antonio and I have not noticed a particularly high amount or blacks, asians or europeans. While there are some, they do not amount to nearly the number of hispanics, So in San Antonio, if all the schools were balanced best as possible, there would probably be about 3x as many whites and about 1.75x hispanics as compared to all blacks, asians and europeans combined, This is simply from my own observation. Different states and cities have different demographics, but as a whole, you cannot racially balance schools if the demographic isn't there. Plus, how would a court of law go about balancing the schools? How would they know how where to send each black, white, hispanic, asian, european, so on and so forth, to school? How would they know how many they have to begin with? Answering these questions to lead to tax dollars being wasted and personal privacy being invaded. You can't just tell someone where to go to school because they're not white, or because this school doesn't have enough blacks. Everyone should just simply go to the school of the district they live in. Simple as that. I would also like to point out that most of the examples you used, If I read them correctly, have to do with racism. Racism isn't something you can forcibly destroy by a balance of demographics. The person in question has to change their moral lifestyle to end their racism. Vote Con

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
flyboymaine

Pro

flyboymaine forfeited this round.
Juris_Naturalis

Con

Pro has forfeited this match. In the interest of fairness, I won't post new points until pro does, until the closing statement at the end.
Debate Round No. 2
flyboymaine

Pro

flyboymaine forfeited this round.
Juris_Naturalis

Con

As I said earlier, I will wait for pro before continuing on, with the exception of the last round.
Debate Round No. 3
flyboymaine

Pro

flyboymaine forfeited this round.
Juris_Naturalis

Con

Well I'm just going to wrap up here. I don't believe that any body of government should force a child to attend a certain school or bar them from attendance of a school based on race alone. It would be a logistical nightmare and may result in kids having to travel out of the way to attend a school, which costs money, all for the sake of balance. Simply let the children attend school in the district they reside in. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Am I the only one who's wondering why there's like 5 other debates with the same name and same opening arguments?
No votes have been placed for this debate.