That's a weird law if that's what it actually was. By having different standards you have to admit you're fine with not saving kids from bad situations if their parents are considered disadvantaged or that you're fine with breaking up some other families that you don't think are really that bad
If it's because of unfair discrimination by the county causing inaccurate case decisions then the county should crack down on their department rather than making a law to counter-discriminate. If the county refuses then sue them into submission
If the cases are being accurately assessed then we're back to my original post
There was a study in one class that was wondering why I think it was black people get institutionalized for schizophrenia at much higher rates. And yeah the conclusion was it was probably some racism but also just downstream of where racism got is -- black people are significantly more likely to be poorer, lack community supports, and even the fact black household disproportionately hit their children and are less likely to have had adequate school resources during key development windows.
In essence - racism is complicated and it lingers for generations. Some of what we see is direct bias. Some it is inherited as the cumulative effect of centuries of bias. Setting overly simplified goals that don't give tangible guidelines are at risk of causing unintentional harm (the fact black people are disproportionately likely to end up in the system is bad. But also can we improve the experience of being in the system? Can we improve the root causes of entering the system)
I'm always wary of anything that concludes racial disparity is exclusively caused by active current racial bias because it just totally discounts what we know about trauma and epigenetics. Black and native children will be at some degree of higher risk for a long time, unfortunately. We can and should try to improve it. But you can't snap your fingers to instantly undo what was inherited.
Different racial groups have different levels of wealth, 2 vs 1 parent households, criminality, etc that can lead to different home lives. Why those differences exist is complicated but outside the scope of this issue.
83% of cases being non-white seems high but idk if that's from overenforcement of non-whites or underenforcement of whites.
I think the current system favors white parents (mostly because they on average can afford better legal representation). Since this is about parents not providing a good environment for their kids we can't say that the parent winning is always what's best for the kid though
It would but it doesn't address if the disparity is based on real conditions or not. Ultimately I think giving the government explicit authority to discriminate on how strictly laws apply to one demographic vs another is dangerous as hell and we should avoid it
Isn’t it just as dangerous to ignore racial disparities? Isn’t that how “separate but equal” comes about?
I care more about making sure that these kids aren’t being disadvantaged because of their race, which we know for a fact they are. If you want to do a deep dive study on why these racial disparities pop up, that’s fine, but we shouldn’t ignore racial disparities while you do so.
Didn’t say it was. But if you know the system is unintentionally benefiting kids of a certain race, isn’t keeping that system in place saying that you’re fine with not saving kids from bad situations depending on their race?
That one isn't as cut and dry because essentially it's standard union contract language to demand layoffs be done by seniority. The union voted and agreed to add an addendum - they would let the district deviate from purely seniority based layoffs when it would affect the unions own goals of addressing historic inequities in hiring practices.
This same idea was already given the greenlight for hiring - a consideration of evaluating an employees should be how they meet business need. There is data to show that students benefit from more diverse teacher populations.
The issue with layoffs is there isn't a complicated evaluation process. It's traditionally based solely on seniority, because it's to prevent the employee from laying off the most experienced (and therefore highest paid) workers and then replacing them with cheap newbies. We've known for a while that equally qualified candidates are more/less likely to be hired based on certain demographic factors like being black. The district and the union agreed a while ago that there more than enough evidence that they needed to address the severe racial imbalance in teaching staff.
The issue is that this is a newer practice. So if there's gonna be layoffs, you're gonna clear out a lot of that progress. And there very possibly will be catastrophic layoffs in the future. So its a very real question to ask if clearing out a huge chunk of non-white teachers served the interests of a diverse student base where data shows they very much benefit from more diverse teachers.
This isn't white vs black. It's seniority vs diversity in a labor agreement.
If the courts strike down their current agreement, they're just gonna keep coming back over and over finding a new workaround. You cannot force a union to demand seniority rights if that's not their priority and the district is not gonna fight them to keep the highest paid teachers on the payroll.
Its actually a law that would endanger black children and take away the protections for them.
We've gone full circle racism. Rich democrats who live comfortable lives because they are supported by an underclass of black laborers declared that they would prefer if black children didn't receive the same protections as white children.
The law says that black kids couldn't be taken away from dangerous parents even in cases where there is imminent risk of death or serious injury to the children, if those reasons included a long list of exceptions like exposure to drug, prenatal drug use, lack of shelter from the cold minnesota winters, etc. They restrict CPS from acting in anything but a case where the children will certainly be killed and its not from those reasons. Unlike for every other race, where white children can be taken away if the parents are unfit even if they aren't at risk of being killed
So if a 16 year old black single mother junkie was prostituting herself out of an unheated tent in a homeless encampment where she left fentanyl pills strewn on the ground and had a history of severely violent mental illness directed at children, and had special needs kids in the tent with her because she was a chronic alcoholic during pregnancy, she couldn't have her kids taken away. Because it says:
Removing a child from a home requires higher scrutiny and can happen only if the child is under life threatening “imminent physical danger or harm.”
“The existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, age of the parent, crowded or inadequate housing, substance use, prenatal drug or alcohol exposure, mental illness, disability or special needs of the parent or child, or nonconforming social behavior does not by itself constitute imminent physical damage or harm,”
Think about how insane this is. CPS only exists to protect children. Its not a punishment, its not a criminal law enforcement division. Its there to save lives. Black children wouldn't be protected.
Jesus, tell me you have no experience with the foster system without telling me you have no experience with the foster system.
What underclass of black laborers are you talking about that the left rich are using, exactly? Seems like a pretty fantastic statement. Maybe the good loving and well paying right wing rich will come and save them...lol
The American foster system is absolutely fucked right now. It's filled with shitty people taking advantage of kids who need.fostet care for a paycheck. Many don't give a fuck about kids, never really wanted to help anyone and sometimes are taking advantage of the situation to abuse children physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually. Being put in foster care can, and absolutely has, caused more harm than good for children.
This claim: "if a 16 year old black single mother junkie was prostituting herself out of an unheated tent in a homeless encampment where she left fentanyl pills strewn on the ground and had a history of severely violent mental illness directed at children, and had special needs kids in the tent with her because she was a chronic alcoholic during pregnancy, she couldn't have her kids taken away" is absolutely NOT what this article is saying.
For one, being homeless ie: living in a tent, is not considered a home, there for this stupid scenario doesn't apply. CPS DOESNT CONSIDER LIVING IN A TENT SAFE, AND WOULD PRIORITIZE REMOVAL.
"severely violent mental illness directed at children" an unmedicated mother living in a tent with this history, CPS WOULD PRIORITIZE REMOVAL
2nd: "pills being strewn about" or any class 1 drug is an automatic fail and CPS immediately is involved and removal of child is prioritized if that's found during an inspection.
YOU READ THE WORDS OF THE ARTICLE BUT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEM AND JUST MADE SOME SILLY SHIT UP.
Ready? I'm going to capitalize the important parts so pay attention:
"The existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, age of the parent, crowded or inadequate housing, substance use, prenatal drug or alcohol exposure, mental illness, disability or special needs of the parent or child, or nonconforming social behavior does not by ITSELF constitute imminent physical damage or harm,”
And
"Removing a child from a home requires HIGHER SCRUTINY and can happen only if the child is under life threatening “imminent physical danger or harm.”
FOSTER CARE ISNT THE OUTRIGHT BEST OPTION FOR ANY AND ALL SITUATIONS! That's why they want to be sure before child removal. Exhaust other avenues first, IF THE SITUATION IS SAFE ENOUGH TO, then move to foster.
The American foster system is absolutely fucked right now. It's filled with shitty people taking advantage of kids who need.fostet care for a paycheck.
The entire point of CPS is to protect children. Do you have some opposition to the idea of a social safety net existing in general?
. For one, being homeless ie: living in a tent, is not considered a home,
You are completely wrong, "inadequate housing" is specified as a reason that cannot be used to take away black children in this law, even if it presents an imminent risk. Its right there, in the text. I quoted it for you, I will quote it again;
“The existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, age of the parent, crowded or inadequate housing, substance use, prenatal drug or alcohol exposure, mental illness, disability or special needs of the parent or child, or nonconforming social behavior does not by itself constitute imminent physical damage or harm,”
"severely violent mental illness directed at children" an unmedicated mother living in a tent with this history, CPS WOULD PRIORITIZE REMOVAL
did you even read the article? did you read the law? did you read my post? did you read anything?
its literally specified as a reason they CANNOT remove children under this law, even if its an imminent risk
2nd: "pills being strewn about" or any class 1 drug is an automatic fail and CPS immediately is involved and removal of child is prioritized if that's found during an inspection.
AGAIN
literally specified in the law, substance use cannot be used as a factor
The law is clear: A child cannot be removed from a black family unless there is an imminent risk of harm, and these factors cannot be identified as an imminent risk of harm.
You are either not understanding how the law is written because it's hard for you to grasp, or you're purposely being disingenuous with your claims. So, once again:
"The existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, age of the parent, crowded or inadequate housing, substance use, prenatal drug or alcohol exposure, mental illness, disability or special needs of the parent or child, or nonconforming social behavior DOES NOT BY ITSELF CONSTITUTE IMMINENT PHYSICAL DANGER OR HARM"
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS THAT ANY SINGLE ONE OF THESE THINGS DOESNT MEAN IMMEDIATE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY, BUT THAT IT WILL BE HANDLED CASE BY CASE DEPENDENT UPON THE SITUATION AS A WHOLE
So your fantasy example from your previous comment would result in child removal because not only are the multiple parts that singularly constitute as immediate endangerment of the child, but there are multiple of them.
No where does it say ANY current substance use doesn't qualify as a danger, it's dependent on the situation. DO YOU THINK A PARENT WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL SHOULD HAVE THEIR CHILD TAKEN JUST BECAUSE THEY DRINK ALCOHOL? Instead it will be one check mark on the list that when
No where does it say "tents count as fine"
No where does it say "violent mental illness directed at children" is fine. It said disability or special needs doesn't require immediate removal BY ITSELF
ITS SITUATIONAL! WHY IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THEY ARE TRYING TO MINIMIZE UNNECESSARY CHILD RELOCATION DUE TO ARBITRARY RULES THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE OUT TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE.
You literally don't know how to read laws. An "or" clause means no combination of those factors combined can be the basis for an imminent risk of harm, it must be from some OTHER factor.
Oh my god just think through your (il)logic for a second
The Civil Rights Act says;
42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Under your logic, someone could be discriminated against on the basis of race AND color, or religion AND national origin, or any other 2+ factors combined.
The word 'or' is used in legal codes precisely because it is unambiguously disjunctive rather than conjunctive, which is why the civil rights act bars discrimination against access on the basis of any one or more of its factors rather than only on the basis of one, or all of them. This is basic logic. Its been labored over by very irked justices who don't like having to explain this shit either, like In Re Powell 2014, Grassy Creek Neighborhood Alliance v City of Winstom Salem 2001
again basic operative logic gates like computer science has formalized. "And" means both branches must be true, and its false if either or both are false "or" means either one or both branches could be true, and its false if both branches are false
And gate:
-
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Or gate:
-
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
Any one or more branches of the list of criterion (family poverty, isolation, single parenthood.... noncomforming social behavior) can be true, and no one or more of them can be used to constitute imminent physical danger or harm without some other factor cited.
Its a pretty plain english text to read: To take a child away, they must establish imminent physical harm, and they must establish it primarily on the basis of some factor that isn't inside of that list.
Hence my example, where I listed a hypothetical case (actually not hypothetical if you've ever seen the homeless encampments) where a parent could satisfy numerous blatant red flags that are obviously going to get her child killed, but the state is powerless to act because of this law.
Licensed healthcare providers are taxed a special MN Cares Provider Tax of 1.8% of GROSS service reimbursements to pay for Walz’s scams. Nobody else in the state pays it. It’s what we get for the honor of providing healthcare services I suppose. Selective predation is the name of their game.
We own a dental practice in MN and have to pay into this tax every quarter. It’s no joke. Have friends in the surrounding states that only pay half of what MN is taxed.
It's about the students. There's a ton of data that racially diverse student populations benefits from racially diverse teacher and boys benefit from more male educators.
Unions have seniority rules that do not exist in the private sector. There is no legal obligation to keep the staff that's been there the longest, and actually most companies do the opposite and favor getting rid of the highest paid people in the role. The union is willing to conditionally waive seniority rights when that conflicts with the goal of more diverse staff populations.
It's not about being a member of society. It's about children in a specific district and see staff in a specific union, and the labor contract they have with the district.
Seniority isn't a legally protected concept so the union is just gonna keep coming back to this. They can't be forced to protect employees on a criteria they no longer feel is the absolute highest priority..it's how much you want to undermine labors right to self determinism in the process.
They’ve been the status quo for centuries here. If that’s what it takes to help folks whose lives are terrible at no fault of their own, yes they are the correct solution.
The only other option is doing away with systematic/ institutionalized racism, and that clearly is not happening any time soon in any state.
Does systemic racism explain racial disparities in the child welfare system today?
Yes..... I think that's pretty obvious just looking at history within the past 50 years. Even the American Bar Association has an article on it.
are separate standards based on race the right solution?
For now, yes. I think it would be ridiculous to set one standard for everyone seeing how we come from different backgrounds and financial situations. Is there a better system that you believe would work?
My best example as to why separate standards exist is pretty easy to understand and I gained from student teaching. I worked in a 5th grade classroom of mostly poor students who were second generation immigrants. A standardized test had a question that students were expected to write a essay on; "What was your favorite vacation and why?" Seems simple, yet almost every student failed on the essay. The answer was pretty simple, no student in that classroom has ever been on a vacation; they simply couldn't truthfully answer the question.
Should my class have been given a different question, and thus a different standard for testing?
Wild that a standardized test would ask that of public school kids. I'm white and never went on vacations as a kid, can't imagine that kids in even worse structural situations would have experienced vacations either.
Does systemic racism explain racial disparities in the child welfare system today?
I think so yes, Systemic racism impacts all aspects of the lives of the people and even future opportunities for them and their offspring. The impacts of racism doesn't end because the civil rights law was passed.
I think one must have a nuance approach to fixing systemic racism. Ignoring it or a one size fits all isn't properly addressing it.
You really didnt? You don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that black men are jailed at a significantly higher right and for longer sentences?
Drug use is the same per capita between white and black Americans. Black Americans are more likely to be sent to jail for possession and get longer sentences on average for possession than white Americans
I think the point that you’re missing here is that we’re trying to hold everyone to the same standard today, and not have different standards for people of different ethnicities. Sometimes statistics unfortunately reflect the conditions caused by our society, but to me holding people to a lower standard because we assume they’re disadvantaged seems racist in of its self, it comes across as “we think we’re better than you.” It’s like a white savior complex, we still need to improve race relations, things will never be 100%, but a level playing field in my opinion will help the most
Biden isnt even an example of "sjw so hard you circle back to bigotry". He's just an old school racist. Even Kamala pointed this out. He's very much a standard mid century centrist who chose which letter he ran over based on which party dominated the region.
That's literally why he was chosen as Obamas running mate. He was literally there to offset him for voters/Congressmen who were nervous about the young black guy.
Remember he said he doesn’t want his kids going to school in a “racial jungle” because he was anti desegregation. Biden was pro segregation back in the day, I don’t believe that you magically stop being racist like that overnight.
Oh sure, yeah. I thought you were gonna try to address the systemic racism. Guess not though. Like I said that problem was solved decades ago when we gave those black guys the right to vote. Am I right?
No clearly what we need is more race based policy. 70 years ago race based policy was terrible and a blemish on American society, but now that “progressives” support it - it’s OK now. Right?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, it just alienates another group and creates more inequality and breeds racism. You enforce things the same, and attack anyone racist within the system.
I mean you could very easily argue allowing black children to be abused and neglected because they're black is systemic racism. I know someone who hated their mom and loved one of their foster parents and is still in contact with them today. They should have been denied a safe stable home and left to rot with their mentally ill parent who refused help?
There's no simple answers here. The vagueness of just discouraging black foster placements is really concerning when you remember the severe socioeconomic inequity, the lack of resources to bridge that gap, and that is an ACE and exacerbates other ACES. you would in fact expect a group significant more likely to live in poverty to have higher foster placement rates. That makes sense. Just saying well try to lower it without increasing resources to address root issues ....that's just systemic neglect
I thought systemic racism ended after they took that nice lady off the pancake syrup bottles in 2020?
You’d think so, but no one is safe while Wendy’s touts a ginger as their mascot. We need REAL change.
No one cares about gingers.
How insensitive are you?
That was a joke.
That's a weird law if that's what it actually was. By having different standards you have to admit you're fine with not saving kids from bad situations if their parents are considered disadvantaged or that you're fine with breaking up some other families that you don't think are really that bad
Is that what you’re doing right now about not addressing it?
Depends on why the gap exists
If it's because of unfair discrimination by the county causing inaccurate case decisions then the county should crack down on their department rather than making a law to counter-discriminate. If the county refuses then sue them into submission
If the cases are being accurately assessed then we're back to my original post
There was a study in one class that was wondering why I think it was black people get institutionalized for schizophrenia at much higher rates. And yeah the conclusion was it was probably some racism but also just downstream of where racism got is -- black people are significantly more likely to be poorer, lack community supports, and even the fact black household disproportionately hit their children and are less likely to have had adequate school resources during key development windows.
In essence - racism is complicated and it lingers for generations. Some of what we see is direct bias. Some it is inherited as the cumulative effect of centuries of bias. Setting overly simplified goals that don't give tangible guidelines are at risk of causing unintentional harm (the fact black people are disproportionately likely to end up in the system is bad. But also can we improve the experience of being in the system? Can we improve the root causes of entering the system)
I'm always wary of anything that concludes racial disparity is exclusively caused by active current racial bias because it just totally discounts what we know about trauma and epigenetics. Black and native children will be at some degree of higher risk for a long time, unfortunately. We can and should try to improve it. But you can't snap your fingers to instantly undo what was inherited.
If the outcome is favoring one racial group over another, how does it depend?
You agree that in the current system the outcome favors white kids, right?
Different racial groups have different levels of wealth, 2 vs 1 parent households, criminality, etc that can lead to different home lives. Why those differences exist is complicated but outside the scope of this issue.
83% of cases being non-white seems high but idk if that's from overenforcement of non-whites or underenforcement of whites.
I think the current system favors white parents (mostly because they on average can afford better legal representation). Since this is about parents not providing a good environment for their kids we can't say that the parent winning is always what's best for the kid though
But you agree that racial disparities exist in the system? You’re saying you’re fine with those disparities?
The issue is I don't think the Act in question is the right way of fixing it, not that the system couldn't be improved
But the act would help solve those racial disparities, no? That was the part that you specifically called out
It would but it doesn't address if the disparity is based on real conditions or not. Ultimately I think giving the government explicit authority to discriminate on how strictly laws apply to one demographic vs another is dangerous as hell and we should avoid it
Isn’t it just as dangerous to ignore racial disparities? Isn’t that how “separate but equal” comes about?
I care more about making sure that these kids aren’t being disadvantaged because of their race, which we know for a fact they are. If you want to do a deep dive study on why these racial disparities pop up, that’s fine, but we shouldn’t ignore racial disparities while you do so.
Not every disparity is the result of malicious or nefarious intent or systems
Sure. What’s the third reason?
Didn’t say it was. But if you know the system is unintentionally benefiting kids of a certain race, isn’t keeping that system in place saying that you’re fine with not saving kids from bad situations depending on their race?
[removed]
That one isn't as cut and dry because essentially it's standard union contract language to demand layoffs be done by seniority. The union voted and agreed to add an addendum - they would let the district deviate from purely seniority based layoffs when it would affect the unions own goals of addressing historic inequities in hiring practices.
This same idea was already given the greenlight for hiring - a consideration of evaluating an employees should be how they meet business need. There is data to show that students benefit from more diverse teacher populations.
The issue with layoffs is there isn't a complicated evaluation process. It's traditionally based solely on seniority, because it's to prevent the employee from laying off the most experienced (and therefore highest paid) workers and then replacing them with cheap newbies. We've known for a while that equally qualified candidates are more/less likely to be hired based on certain demographic factors like being black. The district and the union agreed a while ago that there more than enough evidence that they needed to address the severe racial imbalance in teaching staff.
The issue is that this is a newer practice. So if there's gonna be layoffs, you're gonna clear out a lot of that progress. And there very possibly will be catastrophic layoffs in the future. So its a very real question to ask if clearing out a huge chunk of non-white teachers served the interests of a diverse student base where data shows they very much benefit from more diverse teachers.
This isn't white vs black. It's seniority vs diversity in a labor agreement.
If the courts strike down their current agreement, they're just gonna keep coming back over and over finding a new workaround. You cannot force a union to demand seniority rights if that's not their priority and the district is not gonna fight them to keep the highest paid teachers on the payroll.
Its actually a law that would endanger black children and take away the protections for them.
We've gone full circle racism. Rich democrats who live comfortable lives because they are supported by an underclass of black laborers declared that they would prefer if black children didn't receive the same protections as white children.
The law says that black kids couldn't be taken away from dangerous parents even in cases where there is imminent risk of death or serious injury to the children, if those reasons included a long list of exceptions like exposure to drug, prenatal drug use, lack of shelter from the cold minnesota winters, etc. They restrict CPS from acting in anything but a case where the children will certainly be killed and its not from those reasons. Unlike for every other race, where white children can be taken away if the parents are unfit even if they aren't at risk of being killed
So if a 16 year old black single mother junkie was prostituting herself out of an unheated tent in a homeless encampment where she left fentanyl pills strewn on the ground and had a history of severely violent mental illness directed at children, and had special needs kids in the tent with her because she was a chronic alcoholic during pregnancy, she couldn't have her kids taken away. Because it says:
Think about how insane this is. CPS only exists to protect children. Its not a punishment, its not a criminal law enforcement division. Its there to save lives. Black children wouldn't be protected.
please move this up ⬆️
Jesus, tell me you have no experience with the foster system without telling me you have no experience with the foster system.
What underclass of black laborers are you talking about that the left rich are using, exactly? Seems like a pretty fantastic statement. Maybe the good loving and well paying right wing rich will come and save them...lol
The American foster system is absolutely fucked right now. It's filled with shitty people taking advantage of kids who need.fostet care for a paycheck. Many don't give a fuck about kids, never really wanted to help anyone and sometimes are taking advantage of the situation to abuse children physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually. Being put in foster care can, and absolutely has, caused more harm than good for children.
This claim: "if a 16 year old black single mother junkie was prostituting herself out of an unheated tent in a homeless encampment where she left fentanyl pills strewn on the ground and had a history of severely violent mental illness directed at children, and had special needs kids in the tent with her because she was a chronic alcoholic during pregnancy, she couldn't have her kids taken away" is absolutely NOT what this article is saying. For one, being homeless ie: living in a tent, is not considered a home, there for this stupid scenario doesn't apply. CPS DOESNT CONSIDER LIVING IN A TENT SAFE, AND WOULD PRIORITIZE REMOVAL.
"severely violent mental illness directed at children" an unmedicated mother living in a tent with this history, CPS WOULD PRIORITIZE REMOVAL
2nd: "pills being strewn about" or any class 1 drug is an automatic fail and CPS immediately is involved and removal of child is prioritized if that's found during an inspection.
YOU READ THE WORDS OF THE ARTICLE BUT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEM AND JUST MADE SOME SILLY SHIT UP.
Ready? I'm going to capitalize the important parts so pay attention:
"The existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, age of the parent, crowded or inadequate housing, substance use, prenatal drug or alcohol exposure, mental illness, disability or special needs of the parent or child, or nonconforming social behavior does not by ITSELF constitute imminent physical damage or harm,”
And
"Removing a child from a home requires HIGHER SCRUTINY and can happen only if the child is under life threatening “imminent physical danger or harm.”
FOSTER CARE ISNT THE OUTRIGHT BEST OPTION FOR ANY AND ALL SITUATIONS! That's why they want to be sure before child removal. Exhaust other avenues first, IF THE SITUATION IS SAFE ENOUGH TO, then move to foster.
The entire point of CPS is to protect children. Do you have some opposition to the idea of a social safety net existing in general?
You are completely wrong, "inadequate housing" is specified as a reason that cannot be used to take away black children in this law, even if it presents an imminent risk. Its right there, in the text. I quoted it for you, I will quote it again;
“The existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, age of the parent, crowded or inadequate housing, substance use, prenatal drug or alcohol exposure, mental illness, disability or special needs of the parent or child, or nonconforming social behavior does not by itself constitute imminent physical damage or harm,”
did you even read the article? did you read the law? did you read my post? did you read anything?
its literally specified as a reason they CANNOT remove children under this law, even if its an imminent risk
AGAIN
literally specified in the law, substance use cannot be used as a factor
The law is clear: A child cannot be removed from a black family unless there is an imminent risk of harm, and these factors cannot be identified as an imminent risk of harm.
What didn't you understand?
You are either not understanding how the law is written because it's hard for you to grasp, or you're purposely being disingenuous with your claims. So, once again:
"The existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, age of the parent, crowded or inadequate housing, substance use, prenatal drug or alcohol exposure, mental illness, disability or special needs of the parent or child, or nonconforming social behavior DOES NOT BY ITSELF CONSTITUTE IMMINENT PHYSICAL DANGER OR HARM"
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS THAT ANY SINGLE ONE OF THESE THINGS DOESNT MEAN IMMEDIATE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY, BUT THAT IT WILL BE HANDLED CASE BY CASE DEPENDENT UPON THE SITUATION AS A WHOLE
So your fantasy example from your previous comment would result in child removal because not only are the multiple parts that singularly constitute as immediate endangerment of the child, but there are multiple of them.
No where does it say ANY current substance use doesn't qualify as a danger, it's dependent on the situation. DO YOU THINK A PARENT WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL SHOULD HAVE THEIR CHILD TAKEN JUST BECAUSE THEY DRINK ALCOHOL? Instead it will be one check mark on the list that when
No where does it say "tents count as fine"
No where does it say "violent mental illness directed at children" is fine. It said disability or special needs doesn't require immediate removal BY ITSELF
ITS SITUATIONAL! WHY IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THEY ARE TRYING TO MINIMIZE UNNECESSARY CHILD RELOCATION DUE TO ARBITRARY RULES THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE OUT TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE.
You're borderline making shit up.
You literally don't know how to read laws. An "or" clause means no combination of those factors combined can be the basis for an imminent risk of harm, it must be from some OTHER factor.
Oh my god just think through your (il)logic for a second
The Civil Rights Act says;
Under your logic, someone could be discriminated against on the basis of race AND color, or religion AND national origin, or any other 2+ factors combined.
lmao
I'm sorry but I'm not finding anything that backs up your take on the "or clause".
I mean this without facetiousness, can you please provide some info to back up that claim?
The word 'or' is used in legal codes precisely because it is unambiguously disjunctive rather than conjunctive, which is why the civil rights act bars discrimination against access on the basis of any one or more of its factors rather than only on the basis of one, or all of them. This is basic logic. Its been labored over by very irked justices who don't like having to explain this shit either, like In Re Powell 2014, Grassy Creek Neighborhood Alliance v City of Winstom Salem 2001
again basic operative logic gates like computer science has formalized. "And" means both branches must be true, and its false if either or both are false "or" means either one or both branches could be true, and its false if both branches are false
And gate:
Or gate:
Any one or more branches of the list of criterion (family poverty, isolation, single parenthood.... noncomforming social behavior) can be true, and no one or more of them can be used to constitute imminent physical danger or harm without some other factor cited.
Its a pretty plain english text to read: To take a child away, they must establish imminent physical harm, and they must establish it primarily on the basis of some factor that isn't inside of that list.
Hence my example, where I listed a hypothetical case (actually not hypothetical if you've ever seen the homeless encampments) where a parent could satisfy numerous blatant red flags that are obviously going to get her child killed, but the state is powerless to act because of this law.
Good. Stand against racism.
Licensed healthcare providers are taxed a special MN Cares Provider Tax of 1.8% of GROSS service reimbursements to pay for Walz’s scams. Nobody else in the state pays it. It’s what we get for the honor of providing healthcare services I suppose. Selective predation is the name of their game.
We own a dental practice in MN and have to pay into this tax every quarter. It’s no joke. Have friends in the surrounding states that only pay half of what MN is taxed.
Why is everything that tries to protect us so harshly criticized and shouted down upon.
Does this Sub hate us or something lol
I pay my taxes like everyone else
Because you aren't better or more deserving than anyone else.
I pay my taxes, too. It's part of being a member of society. Welcome.
It's about the students. There's a ton of data that racially diverse student populations benefits from racially diverse teacher and boys benefit from more male educators.
Unions have seniority rules that do not exist in the private sector. There is no legal obligation to keep the staff that's been there the longest, and actually most companies do the opposite and favor getting rid of the highest paid people in the role. The union is willing to conditionally waive seniority rights when that conflicts with the goal of more diverse staff populations.
It's not about being a member of society. It's about children in a specific district and see staff in a specific union, and the labor contract they have with the district.
Seniority isn't a legally protected concept so the union is just gonna keep coming back to this. They can't be forced to protect employees on a criteria they no longer feel is the absolute highest priority..it's how much you want to undermine labors right to self determinism in the process.
Because you cannot comply your way out of fascism.
“We must protect our race based policies, to fight… fascism”
Absolute clowns. All of you. “Progressive HQ” hahaha
[deleted]
Do you feel triggered?
Yeah I can see that. I dont think people live in MLPS they just wanna shout at something lol
Historically families of color have had their children seperated from them at a greater rate. This has mostly due to systemic racism.
"Historically". Does systemic racism explain racial disparities in the child welfare system today?
And regardless of your answer to that, are separate standards based on race the right solution?
They’ve been the status quo for centuries here. If that’s what it takes to help folks whose lives are terrible at no fault of their own, yes they are the correct solution.
The only other option is doing away with systematic/ institutionalized racism, and that clearly is not happening any time soon in any state.
You lost half a foot due to an accident years ago. But does that explain why you can’t run as fast as everyone else?
You lost half a foot due to an accident years ago. But does that explain why you can’t run as fast as everyone else?
Yes..... I think that's pretty obvious just looking at history within the past 50 years. Even the American Bar Association has an article on it.
For now, yes. I think it would be ridiculous to set one standard for everyone seeing how we come from different backgrounds and financial situations. Is there a better system that you believe would work?
My best example as to why separate standards exist is pretty easy to understand and I gained from student teaching. I worked in a 5th grade classroom of mostly poor students who were second generation immigrants. A standardized test had a question that students were expected to write a essay on; "What was your favorite vacation and why?" Seems simple, yet almost every student failed on the essay. The answer was pretty simple, no student in that classroom has ever been on a vacation; they simply couldn't truthfully answer the question.
Should my class have been given a different question, and thus a different standard for testing?
[deleted]
Me teaching? Lmao want the information of the school I taught at? Want me to send a photo of my Bachelor's in Education degree?
Meaningless degree. The condition of American schools' product proves my assertion.
That might be the dumbest thing I ever heard. Nice rage bait.
Wild that a standardized test would ask that of public school kids. I'm white and never went on vacations as a kid, can't imagine that kids in even worse structural situations would have experienced vacations either.
I think so yes, Systemic racism impacts all aspects of the lives of the people and even future opportunities for them and their offspring. The impacts of racism doesn't end because the civil rights law was passed.
I think one must have a nuance approach to fixing systemic racism. Ignoring it or a one size fits all isn't properly addressing it.
Crazy. I didn't know it was "racism" that was only keeping 1 in 4 black fathers in the home.
How do those mental gymnastics work again on that one? You seem like the guy to go to for that one. 😂
You really didnt? You don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that black men are jailed at a significantly higher right and for longer sentences?
And if you were to look up crime stats by demographic per capita you would see why that is
Drug use is the same per capita between white and black Americans. Black Americans are more likely to be sent to jail for possession and get longer sentences on average for possession than white Americans
People don’t typically go to jail for “drug use”, they go for drug trafficking. You should look up those stats too.
Did you read my comment? Try again. What did I say they got sent to jail for?
Right. And you need to read mine again too.
The more times you get convicted the longer your sentence usually is.
The studies done on it compared first time offenders sentenced for possession. Any other excuses?
How do you feel about females of all races having lighter sentences in general than men all of races?
Sssshhhh this is no place to discuss system racism. That ended the day us white guys allowed the blacks to vote, if you ask this sub.
I think the point that you’re missing here is that we’re trying to hold everyone to the same standard today, and not have different standards for people of different ethnicities. Sometimes statistics unfortunately reflect the conditions caused by our society, but to me holding people to a lower standard because we assume they’re disadvantaged seems racist in of its self, it comes across as “we think we’re better than you.” It’s like a white savior complex, we still need to improve race relations, things will never be 100%, but a level playing field in my opinion will help the most
The soft racism of the left strikes again. Remember when Biden told us "poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids"?
Biden isnt even an example of "sjw so hard you circle back to bigotry". He's just an old school racist. Even Kamala pointed this out. He's very much a standard mid century centrist who chose which letter he ran over based on which party dominated the region.
That's literally why he was chosen as Obamas running mate. He was literally there to offset him for voters/Congressmen who were nervous about the young black guy.
Remember he said he doesn’t want his kids going to school in a “racial jungle” because he was anti desegregation. Biden was pro segregation back in the day, I don’t believe that you magically stop being racist like that overnight.
It's no better than the hard racism of the right.
I’m wide open to your suggestions. But I’m not opposing anything that elevates marginalized people, not on face value anyway.
One very obvious suggestion is to have one standard, regardless of race.
Oh sure, yeah. I thought you were gonna try to address the systemic racism. Guess not though. Like I said that problem was solved decades ago when we gave those black guys the right to vote. Am I right?
No clearly what we need is more race based policy. 70 years ago race based policy was terrible and a blemish on American society, but now that “progressives” support it - it’s OK now. Right?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, it just alienates another group and creates more inequality and breeds racism. You enforce things the same, and attack anyone racist within the system.
I mean you could very easily argue allowing black children to be abused and neglected because they're black is systemic racism. I know someone who hated their mom and loved one of their foster parents and is still in contact with them today. They should have been denied a safe stable home and left to rot with their mentally ill parent who refused help?
There's no simple answers here. The vagueness of just discouraging black foster placements is really concerning when you remember the severe socioeconomic inequity, the lack of resources to bridge that gap, and that is an ACE and exacerbates other ACES. you would in fact expect a group significant more likely to live in poverty to have higher foster placement rates. That makes sense. Just saying well try to lower it without increasing resources to address root issues ....that's just systemic neglect