Talk:Segregation academy/Archive 2

Current day parallel: argument against charter schools

 * Hello FloridaArmy --The same arguments against tuition grants a half-century ago (Coffey v. State Educational Finance Commission) are being used against charter schools. The assertion deleted January 18 describes two specific opponents by name. The reference includes both opponents. The second reference clearly articulates the argument, "The bill has been strongly opposed by Perdue’s fellow Democrats and teacher’s groups in the state that fear a rapid expansion of public charter schools could lead to defunding of the traditional public school system and steer the state back into the path of segregation."
 * Neither reason for deletion, NPOV nor FV seem to apply here. Rhadow (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Rhadow. The lede summarizes the body. The first source was someone's comments in an interview. And the second source was from a think tank that didn't deal mostly with this subject. And finally, charterd are public schools and use a lottery. So we shouldn't mislead people. And voucher programs are often targrted at low income families with children in failing schools. So cherry picking from sources that aren't neutral and aren't mostly about this subject is just bad form. Someone's comment linking the two just isn't enough. If it's addressed substantively in a neutral source add it to the body and flesh it out. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello FloridaArmy - (1) You object to this assertion being in the lede, OK. (2) Crew's and Lynn's objections were to vouchers as described in the reference title. (3) You assert that enrollment in charter schools is by lottery. Is there no choice to participate in the lottery? I don't think this is cherry picking. Rhadow (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the text we're talking about:

"The argument has continued in the context of school vouchers and charter schools, which Rudy Crew and Barry Lynn argue, reduce support for public schools." ref /ref ref  /ref FloridaArmy (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just doing a quick search I am finding reports that address the legacy in Mississippi specifically including groups like Mississippi Parents for Public Schools and then Parents for Public Schools founded in Jackson, discussing that many white students still attend private academies, and note recent civil rights suits such as the one in Cleveland Miss. over segregation. Trying to throw in an attack on vouchers AND charter schools (which are two quite different things) from non-neutral sources that aren't about Mississippi specifically is problematic. If you can find a source discussing voucher programs or charter school programs in Mississippi from reliable independent sources that would be a much better starting point. Do they have a voucher program in Miss.? How is it run? What about Charters? Have they been connected to segregation academies in news and academic accounts? Like I said, just casting aspersions from a politican or oneeducator's opinion isn't good enough in my opinion especially when they aren't talking about segregation academies or Mississippi specifically. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there are a few law review articles discussing the parallels between Coffey and modern school vouchers. Let me see if I can locate them. Billhpike (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It doesn't address vouchers and charters but this Atlantic report discusses the legacy and how the system of public and private schools remains segregated today. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And a more recent [Atlantic] article says that vouchers do nothing for integration overall, or are marginal in public schools and increase segregation in private schools. I stand by the original assertion that school vouchers are tuition grants renamed (at least according to some observers). We can move this from the lede. Rhadow (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Florida schools
I input the first one from Category:Segregation academies in Florida. I'll input the rest if no one gives me grief about this one. deisenbe (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for synchronizing the lists. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Structure of the article
The article is 58,000 characters. Eventually, it will reach the 100K threshold, especially if we expand the list. The Alabama schools section has seven blue-linked articles. There are eighteen pages in the category. Likewise for Florida. Three blue-linked entries in the list, ten in the category. In my view, the length of the list does not increase the readability of the article. A summary list by state would convey as much information to the reader.

In keeping with the definition of schools created in a twenty-two year period and outlawed by Runyon v. McCrary (1976), we should limit the scope of the article. A few were arguably segregated by IRS regulation until the 1990s. Some were de facto segregated in the twenty-first century. I believe it confuses the issue to talk about recent trends to segregation in this article. Perhaps this would be worthy of discussion in another article, either School segregation in the United States or School segregation in the United States in the twenty-first century.

We have lots of time to discuss this and the proposal to add a Closed column to the list. Rhadow (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * An IP editor changed were to are. This implies that there are segregation academies today. These institutions are outlawed. By legal definition, they no longer exist. By contrast, there are still all-white schools, but they aren't segregation academies, to wit: Mesivta Zichron Baruch is all-white, but one would not be likely to call it a seg academy. Our readers would benefit by our compliance to the segregation academy definition established in the courts. Rhadow (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Unabashed bias
This article stinks to high heaven of inherent bias from the title on down. The loaded term "segregation academy" immediately ascribes blanket motive to anyone involved in private schools, assuming (with circular logic, but without providing documentation) the mere existence of private schools to constitute "segregation academiies." The term is then used throughout the article as a verbal club. The first clue to the bias comes in the first paragraph, which observes that "segregation academies" are "often dubbed freedom of choice schools by their proponents"; after which the reader is informed that "Christian education" is simply a "guise" for the schools' actual objective. Further down, the article again employs sneer quotes to remark, "Many segregation academies have since adopted curricula with a 'Christian world view'."Moreover, aside from its overweening assumptions, the article conflates past and present, starting off with the claim that "Segregation academies are [present tense] private schools in the Southern United States," only to note eventually that by law segregated schools in the U.S. literally do not exist and have not for over four decades. There is an extraordinary presumption of racial bias against private schools in general and against religious schools in particular that pervades this entire entry. NicholasNotabene (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello NicholasNotabene, I defend the tone and NPOV of this article. Your specific complaints about the use of the term Segregation academy and the connection with schools named Christian was established and described consistently in congressional hearings and court decisions. I think that the definition is fair in its description that segregation academies as they are defined, no longer exist.
 * These schools varied in quality. Some shut down. Some have gone on to great success. There were once 3,500, according to the IRS. Wikipedia describes 140, and only with reliable sources.
 * Prior to Brown v Board of Education, public schools were similarly segregated. I know, I went to one. That topic is dealt with in other articles. This article should be considered in this context.
 * The article purposefully does not address whether diversity is a desirable or necessary characteristic of a school today. There remain all-white and all-black schools today. The only thing one can say for certain is that these student populations are not the result of written regulations.
 * How would you recommend the article to be re-crafted without bias? If you'd like to debate this, please invite John from Idegon, Billhpike, and JaconaFrere who are sticklers for NPOV. Rhadow (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest for starters that one take the term "segregation academy" apart as a blanket term and ask where it originated. Did these schools define themselves as "segregation academies"? Was segregation in their charters? If not, whence does the term derive? Exactly how does one determine the end motivation of everyone involved — from parents to teachers to students — to be not improved education but segregation? When did this term start being used? Who first used it? Was it an actual term of the time or is it a retroactive term applied as an historical anachronism? Exactly how does one parse out the motives behind the founding of private schools, and pronounce religious education to be merely some sort of fig leaf for segregationism, given the shockwaves sent throughout American society as the result of 1960s lawsuits such as Murray v. Curlett, Abington School District v. Schempp, and Engel v. Vitale? You write: "I think that the definition is fair in its description that segregation academies as they are defined, no longer exist." The problem is that the term is not defined save through circular logic. Moreover, if you agree that these institutions (however badly defined) no longer exist, why is the article couched in the present tense? NicholasNotabene (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello NicholasNotabene, the lede, originally written in the past tense, has been reverted. Your request for a definition and citation of first use is entirely reasonable. It was established by the courts:"The term 'segregation academy' will be used here to denote one of 'a System of private schools operated on a racially segregated basis as an alternative available to white students seeking to avoid desegregated public schools.' Coffey v. State Educ. Fin. Comm'n, 296 F. Supp. 1389, 1392 (S.D. Miss. 1969)."
 * It is not necessary to determine the motivation of those involved; indeed it is impossible. It is possible to describe their actions; they are a matter of history.  As to the association of the Christian label, it was common enough that the courts noticed it. This is not the opinion of an Wikipedia editor. It is noted in both court documents and the press of the time.
 * You cited several first amendment cases. I accept that a private school may teach theology and sponsor prayer while a public school may not. That is reason to start one's own school. Whether it is a fig leaf to start a segregated school is a good question.
 * I leave it to you to judge whether the church connection might have been motivated by faith or finance. Operation of a school under the roof of a church gives significant tax benefits. The sponsor of private schools in Jackson, Mississippi published children's books that taught that heaven (in the Christian conception) is segregated.
 * The defense rests. Rhadow (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Delta Academy (Mississippi)
In Marks, Mississippi seems to meet the bill. Established in 1964, the county is still under a court order to integrate. Take a look. I will try to add to the article&#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Freedom of choice"
The anon who removed text and a reference on Aug. 12, 2019, explaining that "freedom of choice" applied not to segregation academies but to a largely failed effort to allow voluntary desegregation, appears to be correct, per: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/05/the-radical-supreme-court-decision-that-america-forgot/561410/ PRRfan (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)