The readers on segregation, Hillary and Hometown Democracy

Excerpts from recent reader e-mail, starting with reactions to Tuesday's column about the possible re-segregation of public schools because of the "neighborhood school" movement:

Doctor Troxler, You need to get some black friends. If you do you'll better understand why blacks arent crazy about integrated schools. Blacks are very conservative. Theyre very traditional. And no group is more status conscious. Blacks want excellent schools, schools at least as good as the whites attend. Better, if possible. The real issue has always been the quality of the school, not the opportunity to rub elbows with white half-wits and do-gooders...  If a black kid attends a local school, the thinking is he'll get faculty and staff tuned to his community, and a little more sympathetic to how parents handle discipline. -- Jim Johnson

Dear Mr. Johnson: In my own case, I resist making blanket statements about "blacks want so-and-so." My external observation is that there is no monolithic "black" opinion any more than there is a single "white" opinion. Exactly as you say, a lot of black families are expressing a strong preference for neighborhood schools. But a lot of others have been expressing worry in this series of public hearings in Pinellas about the larger downside to resegregation. Be sure and check out my colleague Bill Maxwell's column this morning for a point of view that's closer to yours than mine.

My big reservation about what you wrote in Tuesday's column is the hopeful reference to the judiciary as a correcting influence. I know you don't touch national issues, but Brown v. Board of Education was the product of some pretty unique jurists, whose like are nowhere to be found on today's Supreme Court. The not-so-subtle packing of the federal judiciary by successive conservative administrations with like-minded "strict constructionists" makes it unlikely in the extreme that at any level in the federal courts, a single District Court judge, appeals court panel, or five members of the Supremes will even remember the phrase "separate is unequal." -- Jon McPhee

Dear Mr. McPhee: You're right, I think. I doubt we will see in our lifetimes a federal court ruling as adventurous as the Warren court's. Any challenges to de facto segregation will have to be based on solid and specific problems of unequal resources and results, seems to me.

I am amused at the responses of the men the men (both sides) of their fear of Hillary Clinton.  They should know that the more they put her down the weaker it makes them look.   I think the women of America should unite and elect her---BECAUSE---  look at the mess the men have  made in the two hundred plus years they have in charge. We women need an opportunity to show  how qualified we are to do the job--AFTER ALL--we have lots and lots of experience managing  our household budgets and learning to stretch that dollar. We are peace makers--WE WOULDN'T  SEND OUR CHILDREN TO WAR SO READILY-we are peace makers. We settle sibling squabbles and neighborhood rifts.  Therefore we would try diplomacy before  going to war.  We have stamina--FOOD SHOPPING, HOUSECLEANING, LAUNDRY, FEEDING BABIES  AT NIGHT,CARING FOR THE SICK, CARTING THE CHILDREN TO GAMES, BEING A GAME MOM, AND IN MANY CASES HOLDING DOWN A FULL TIME JOB!!!! Come on women of america and let's get behind Hilliary and show the world  what women can do! -- Ruth

I wish that it were entirely so. But in my experience, politicians who happen to be female (a silly liberal phrase, that "happen to be" -- George Carlin used to make fun of it) -- unfortunately turn out to be just as susceptible to many if not most of the failures of male politicians. It may be that they are less likely to end up consorting with interns, I'll grant you that much...  but I do believe that President Clinton II would not be overly shy about using military force.

Part of a letter from a land-use lawyer about Hometown Democracy:

It's is not that the electorate is unable to make informed decisions on individual issues, it is just that  it can't possibly be accomplished if there are a large number of issues. That means that generally speaking, the only members of the electorate that will vote on an issue are those that are directly affected by the outcome... Most of the electorate would probably look at an issue, determine that 1) they weren't familiar with it and didn't care enough to do the research to become familiar with it, or 2) even though they have no real issue with the proposed action, it doesn't affect them, so they just don't vote on it either way. Thus, the only votes counted are the Nay votes. -- MIke Mackenzie, Dunedin

Dear Mr. Mackenzie: You might be right. I've heard different theories of how voters would behave. Some think they would reflexively vote "no" on most everything or, as you suggest, possibly not vote at all. I think it's possible that under Hometown Democracy, we'd see a new kind of politics and campaigns where the backers of a comp-plan amendment could get an entire community to pass something over the objection of the immediate neighbors. If 1 or 2 things were the most controversial on the ballot, and there was a campaign going, I wonder whether enough voters would at least be familiar enough to cast a ballot...

Comments

[Jim Johnson]

I suggest you get some black friends so you can make some blanket statements about them. In a nutshell, they want what you and I want: good schools. They dont want do-gooders transforming them into ersatz white people and they dont want half-wit miscreants making education impossible. When you get a few black friends you'll see that I'm correct.