Students in Detroit Are Suing the State Because They Weren’t Taught to Read: A federal judge has concluded that the Constitution doesn't require schools to promote students’ literacy. | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


Students in Detroit Are Suing the State Because They Weren’t Taught to Read: A federal judge has concluded that the Constitution doesn't require schools to promote students’ literacy.

In his opinion explaining why he dismissed the case, Judge Murphy acknowledged that literacy is integral to one’s well-being—that, as the late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan once wrote in his opinion on a related educational-access case, “illiteracy is an enduring disability.” Yet Murphy concluded in his analysis that the due-process guarantee to life, liberty, and property does not “demand that a state affirmatively provide each child with a defined, minimum level of education by which the child can attain literacy.” Without that clarity, he was reluctant to assert that the right to literacy exists—let alone that the state violated it.

Murphy’s opinion may be right in a narrow sense, but some legal scholars I talked to said that he could have approached the subject more broadly. Murphy concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the state treated the given Detroit schools differently than it did others. But given that the students lack access to qualified teachers, to tolerable facilities, and to materials that support their learning—conditions that are far less common in predominantly white districts in the state—Murphy ignored the “strong racialized component, some of which has been engineered by the state,” that has contributed to these disparities, said Vanderbilt’s Shaw, who’s also an assistant professor of law. He added, “It has ignored the role that the states have played in creating these very systems,” noting that more prosperous school districts don’t need special assistance now because their neighborhoods were allowed by the government to develop differently.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

I believe that this case was interpreted by Judge Murphy far too narrowly; kids are the future of any culture, and the fabric of the future foundation of any society.

And when I say kids, I mean, all kids.

Sub-par education creates generations of people who cannot function, cannot read, cannot do basic math, and cannot think logically.

These people most generally wind up desperately relying public assistance, just to survive.

So you have to ask yourself: why would any state want that to be the end result of an alleged educational program?!?

The short answer is, for control.

When people are dependent upon the State, they can be controlled, and can be made to do whatever the state asserts is for their own good.

They will make sure that their kids are vaccinated, even when the inserts in the packages of those vaccines warn of the possibility of autism, or sudden death.

They will eat publically provided GMO food, because they have no idea how bad they are for people.

They will vote for the candidates who, instead of finding ways of pulling them out of their illiteracy and innumerancy, will insure that this will continue to happen, so the cycle never breaks.

That is the horrible, hopeless reality for many of these kids.

I hope and pray that the Federal Appeals court in Cinncinati overturns this ruling; all of America's kids deserve better than this!!

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA