The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Backing Busing by the Numbers
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

J1234 writes:

It would be interesting (and relevant) to know what percentage of white parents of school aged children are for busing.

The GSS doesn’t ask respondents about the ages of their children but it does ask about whether or not they have any.

Mean support for mandated busing from 1972 through 1996:

As previously noted, support for busing steadily increased over the period of time in question. The figures above are averages for the entire time period. If the trendline from the seventies through the mid-nineties continued, the contemporary figures will be higher than these (among whites, anyway).

GSS variables used: BUSING, SEX, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), RACE, CHILDS(0)(1-8)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, History, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: GSS 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. indocon says:

    Kamala is probably getting ready to throw another punch at Joey in next debate, bussing was only a start of what will be brutal summer for Joey. What could it next?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  2. Twinkie says:

    If you homeschool your children, the government can’t bus them to some school far away from home. Yet another reason to homeschool and keep your kids away from the indoctrination of the Establishment.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  3. szopen says:

    So could the rise of the support for busing be simply effect of rise of childlessness?

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Audacious Epigone
  4. Arclight says:

    Too bad that data is so old – I think that support for busing by blacks has probably decreased in the age of charter schools, as it gives black parents an option for sending their kids to a non-neighborhood school if they want to (assuming they feel it’s a better educational option). Someone should remind those parents that the Democrats want to destroy the charter school system altogether and shuffle their kids all over the map in the interests of diversity.

    On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if support for busing amongst Latinos is relatively high, particularly if they are in a school or district with a lot of black students, as it appears the two groups don’t really like each other all that much.

    Woke Whites love to say they are in favor of diversity, but when the rubber hits the road and it’s actually about to be inflicted on them, they magically come up with a lot of reasons why their neighborhood isn’t the right place for the changes our overseers want to impose.

    Asians I would guess are totally against it.

  5. @Twinkie

    Yep! All this kind of thing, with the homeschooling being tops, as the kids are the future, comes under that term “off the grid”. It’s too bad so much of the alt-right is so stupidly Socialist that they support big government, which WILL (no ifs, ands or buts) try their damndest to eliminate homeschooling if the numbers become significant (say > 10%).

    They will not stand for:

    a) Losing the money. Yes, I know, homeschoolers, along with the childless for that matter, still pay taxes, but schools get doled out money based on the number of students.

    b) Too many kids “losing out” on the indoctrination into the GloboHomo agenda. That just won’t do, all that thinking for one’s self and shit …

    That’s you #216 and Feryl, etc. – you people want big government to control business and reverse some imaginary “deregulation” (WTF??). You think big government will do what you want it to do. You people are freakin’ nuts, if you really think that. We’ve only had 50 years worth of an example to guide us. What do you need, an app?!

    • Troll: eah
    • Replies: @eah
    , @216
  6. @Arclight

    Asians I would guess are totally against it.

    Especially, I would say, because after the Tiger Mom convinces the Dad that they all need to move into the expensive house with the longer commuting time in the good school district for the one or two kids, they damn sure don’t want any of that busing crap!

    I agree with the rest of that comment too, Arclight.

    BTW, it’s gotta be “busing”, not “bussing”, people. The latter would have to do with electrical circuitry, likely high-power circuits, something Kamela and that diverse crowd wouldn’t know anything about.

    • Replies: @Logan
  7. The Z Blog says: • Website

    A couple of comments.

    1) Related to yesterday’s post, I don’t think Harris plotted her strategy based on support for busing. Political campaigns don’t think long term. She needed an issue to gain attention in the news cycle after the debate. She picked busing because she could personalize it in a way that was impossible to counter in the moment. It was a purely emotional play for blacks and women. In a month, no one will remember this event.

    2) As far as opinions on busing, my guess is Z-Man’s Law is at play here. That is, the further one gets from diversity, the more one celebrates diversity. For most people under the age of 50, busing is something that exists in the abstract. They have no exposure to it. Therefore, they go with what they think is the morally acceptable answer.

    The one caveat here is that blacks probably interpret busing as access to whites. In many northeast cities, bus passes allow blacks to get their kids into white schools. Public transportation has always been the one link between black communities and white communities. Again though, black support for busing is a proxy for something else, not the actual practice of shipping kids across town for school.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  8. I really don’t believe Urban Chicago Liberal White kids living in 1million dollar homes are going to same school as gangbanging Latinos or 10k income black Muslim nationalist

    Never got y’all hatred of the state, as its grossly detrimental to be too pro-capitalist as a nationalist.

    “Not from ideological conversion, but from the practical necessities of feeding and governing the cities, the ‘free’ market had arrived—at the point of a bayonet!”

  9. @Arclight

    My sister is “woke” and criticizes my dad for raising us in a non-diverse 95% White or asian neighborhood. Want to know what kind of neighborhood my nephews are being raised in? About the same. Of course my dad, who I wouldn’t consider woke, “We didn’t move there cause it’s not diverse, we did it because it had good schools” I didn’t suggest to my dad to connect the dots.

  10. It’s interesting how nobody seems to have figured out what the real plan is. Sailer has a bit of an idea.

    The fact is, there just aren’t enough white kids to go around anymore. Therefore, school segregation is actually increasing.

    The next phase is bussing white kids long distances into the non white schools. This whole bussing debate is just a charade to get the idea back into the heads of Americans.

    Count on it

  11. This doesn’t seem a complex question. If I live in a neighborhood in which the system is less than par in keeping with the neighborhood itself.

    Then sending my child to a system that will provide a more effective learning environment is just a wise choice should that choice become available. And it would matter a tinker’s nickel if that target school was white, brown, green or chartreuse . . .

    well I might have a problem with chartreuse.

  12. SFG says:
    @szopen

    Wouldn’t be surprised. Always easier to do social engineering on someone else’s kids.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  13. eah says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s too bad so much of the alt-right is so stupidly Socialist that they support big government…try their damndest to eliminate homeschooling if the numbers become significant

    You are such a dolt — as a matter of fact, as opposed to just your dumb opinion, a great many who would call themselves alt-right are “reformed” libertarians — meaning they have and would have in the future absolutely no problem with homeschooling — no one, except it seems you, seriously believes the alt-right would seek to limit or abolish homeschooling — or support or tolerate that in any way.

    The only reason to speak of “big government” when talking about the alt-right is tech censorship — many do favor government intervention to stop ideological censorship by big tech — but given the situation that is understandable.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  14. White with kids: the demographic for whom this country was created to benefit.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  15. And it would not matter a tinker’s nickel if that target school was white, brown, green or chartreuse . . .

    well I might have a problem with chartreuse.

  16. @eah

    DRAMATIZATION: MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED!

    Nice job with those ellipses, EAH! You know, Springfield Channel 10 could really use a guy like you for their expose show Rock Bottom:

    I never said the whole alt-right are Socialists, just too damn many of them. More importantly, your blatant lying* here is refuted by my original comment that NEVER said that the alt-right would be against homeschooling! The US and State governments will be against homeschooling for at least the 2 reasons I wrote. If you support big government, as do Socialists, you are indirectly causing governments coming down on you and your alt-right family eventually.

    I don’t know Justin and I don’t know Mike Peinovich, so could you explain that last part without tweets?

    .

    * Or generously, maybe this is just a serious reading comprehension problem. If that’s the case, I’m sorry to call you a liar. Go up top and READ!

    • Replies: @eah
  17. eah says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I never said the whole alt-right are Socialists, just too damn many of them.

    I read what you wrote, and excerpted/interpreted it appropriately — the alt-right is, above all, neo-/reformed-libertarian, and isolationist — also, it is (ethno-)nationalist, including and particularly re trade policy — put together, all of that points to small(er) government, not “big government”, and is completely compatible with homeschooling.

    You’re the one who absurdly connected the alt-right to anti-homeschool-ism, not me.

    Compared to this point, your blathering about “I never said the whole alt-right are Socialists” is idiotic and trivial, because I never claimed you said that — which you are too stupid to recognize apparently — and then you talk to me about “reading compreshension” — I mean WTF.

    As I noted above: you are a dumb troll.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  18. @eah

    … as a matter of fact, as opposed to just your dumb opinion, a great many who would call themselves alt-right are “reformed” libertarians — meaning they have and would have in the future absolutely no problem with homeschooling

    See, do you understand what you wrote? “as opposed to” means that you are supposed to be subsequently stating something opposite to what I wrote. Yes, the alt-right WOULD have no problem with home-schooling, at least the ones that aren’t Socialists. The 2 commenters I mentioned (who are at least very civil on here unlike you), are examples of many that I read who are alt-right on immigration, race, nationalism, etc., but somehow feel that a political system built on Socialism vs. Freedom and small government is not really very important to their aims.

    My original point was that these types on the alt-right that think the political system doesn’t matter are near the end of a 5-decade long experiment. We can see how much headway the American people have had in opposing the immigration invasion, the globo-homo agenda, and all of it – basically the whole Sailer “invade-the-world/invite the world” deal. With a Feral Gov’t this big, NOBODY in it really gives a damn what the American people want.

    Homeschooling as a mass movement would be a BIG part in stopping the agenda, but Big Gov will get serious about putting the kibosh on avoidance of the indoctrination camps, err, schools, if it ever became significant.

    Me:

    It’s too bad so much of the alt-right is so stupidly Socialist that they support big government, which WILL (no ifs, ands or buts) try their damndest to eliminate homeschooling …

    Your Rock Bottom version:

    It’s too bad so much of the alt-right is so stupidly Socialist that they support big government…try their damndest to eliminate homeschooling …

    Why’d you leave out my words, EAH? That was pretty scummy.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  19. eah says:

    Why’d you leave out my words, EAH? That was pretty scummy.

    Look idiot, I already told you: I read what you wrote, and excerpted/interpreted it appropriately — what about that isn’t clear? — I said “excerpted”, which means yes I left out words — but I did so appropriately — in no way did the words I omitted materially affect the fact that (as I said): You’re the one who absurdly connected the alt-right to anti-homeschool-ism, not me.

    Simple question: did you, or did you not, connect the alt-right to “big government” and anti-homeschool-ism?

    I don’t know Justin and I don’t know Mike Peinovich, so could you explain that last part without tweets?

    I see — so you don’t know who Mike Enoch is, but you know enough about the alt-right to connect it to “big government” and anti-homeschool-ism — unbelievable.

    Raimondo was mostly an anti-war activist (antiwar.com) — he was also a libertarian, which makes sense since waging war is the ugliest manifestation of (the abuse of) state power.

    And it should be obvious why (reformed) libertarians might be attracted to a new movement like the alt-right (as I defined it above), since the Republican Party is just as obviously pretty useless.

    What, no more Simpsons videos? — that’s always a killer counterargument — run along and look for another one.

  20. Mark G. says:

    Support for busing might be increasing because many of the people who saw what a disaster it was when it was tried on a massive scale in the sixties and seventies are no longer around now. I think the same thing is true with crime. Crime exploded in the sixties. I can still remember from when I was a small child the sudden increase in neighborhood stores and people being robbed. My parents moved out to a suburb because they felt unsafe. Now, 50 years later, I see twenty somethings moving back into the same unsafe neighborhood. They have no bad memories and their parents who also grew up in the suburbs have no bad memories either and won’t warn them not to move there. They just see the low housing costs and proximity to downtown attractions and think it’s a good deal. It seems like every generation has to relearn what their grandparents learned previously. If they try to bring back busing on a massive scale, it will be quietly dropped after ten or fifteen years after they see, once again, the problems with it.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  21. Interesting, but it might have been more appropriate to ask the question this way: Are you in favor of having YOUR children (or grandchildren) bused to advance racial diversity?

    Too many liberal elitists are in favor of certain concepts in abstract as long as they don’t apply to themselves. They virtue-signal by supporting school busing as long as their kids can attend expensive (and overwhelmingly white) private schools. Just like they want to fight global warming as long as they can keep their private jets and giant power-sucking homes with heated swimming pools.

    So go ahead and shuffle the school deck with prole white and black kids as the cards. It won’t matter to my little angels at the Ivory Tower Academy.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  22. @indocon

    The 1994 crime bill.

    • Replies: @216
    , @iffen
  23. @szopen

    That’s probably part of it.

  24. @Achmed E. Newman

    I don’t think either 216 or Feryl consider themselves to be alt-right.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @216
  25. @Audacious Epigone

    You may be right (though not alt-right). I kinda thought everyone on the non-Commie side of unz was, to some extent – anti-immigration-invasion, pro-white, nationalist, anti-globalism?

    I’ll let them write for themselves on this point, next I read from them.

    • Replies: @iffen
  26. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t use the term “Alt-Right” in the present tense, and I don’t describe myself in that fashion. As a past tense term I think it has some relevance to describe the collection of communities that formed among younger supporters of Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, which subsequently collapsed as a coalition.

    I actively discourage anyone from continuing to identify themselves as “Alt-Right”. The term “Dissident Right” is a better descriptor until something else comes along, I also like “the Dissident movements” to describe a wider amount of groups that may not be right-wing.

    My best self-description is “souveranist” on the Singapore Model.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Mark G.
  27. 216 says:

    O/T

    Today we saw the first testing of a new armor scheme

    “I see this summit as a propaganda tool to pressure social media companies to allow hate, racism, xenophobia and religious bigotry, homophobia, to run wild,” Jessica González, the founder of the Change the Terms coalition, which has pressured social media companies to take a stand against bigoted and extremist content online, told The Hill in a phone interview.
    Media Matters, a left-wing media watchdog group, in a statement said conservative bias claims were an attempt to “game the refs.”
    “If the Trump Administration wanted to hold tech companies to account they could pressure them to better protect Americans from foreign interference, misinformation, and hate speech,” Cristina López G., the deputy director for extremism at Media Matters, said in a statement. “Instead, they’ve chosen to focus on claims of supposed bias against conservatives that have no basis in fact.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-rails-against-terrible-bias-at-social-media-summit/ar-AAEc3F4?ocid=spartanntp

    Online censorship, despite its importance to niche partistans like us, is not so important to the typical moderate voter.

    There is a tendency of moderates to support an “authoritarian civility”. So it will be interesting to see if this has legs.

    Perhaps we should proffer if Trump is better off promoting Melania’s “be kind” narrative. I suspect that sells better to median voters, than “Free Internet and Trolls Rights”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  28. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    The odd political constellation appears here. The ’94 crime bill is wildly unpopular with gun rights activists, as it contained the first AWB.

    Sadly the NRA is incapacitated by the revelation that (like the rest of Conservatism Inc) it has been functioning as an “affinity fraud”.

    The “woke NRA” thus was stillborn.

  29. 216 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    That’s you #216 and Feryl, etc. – you people want big government to control business and reverse some imaginary “deregulation” (WTF??). You think big government will do what you want it to do. You people are freakin’ nuts, if you really think that. We’ve only had 50 years worth of an example to guide us. What do you need, an app?!

    What you are advocating, is a sort of “unilateral disarmament”; combined with an abiding faith in the invisible hand of the marketplace.

    I don’t believe there are any compelling alternatives to the “network effect” that Big Tech builds its moats around. Therefore at the very minimum, we need to have these companies regulated as “public utilities”, both by state utility commissions, and by the FCC and FTC in Washington. Some of these companies are so tied into national security and economic sustenance that they are worthy targets for nationalization. Both to protect us from oligarchical rapacity, and a hostile Millennial workforce that I term the “Wokeforce”.

    I cannot do anything meaningful to vote against Google in the marketplace. “Build your own” is not an option, the only other search platforms are another Big Tech site, and niche platforms defeated by the network effect.

    But, if Google can be placed under regulation, or even nationalization; then conservatives will get a seat at the table where they presently have none. That doesn’t guarantee much, but its far better than what we have now.

    To dumb down “deregulation”

    Conservatives are to the free markets, as men are to online dating apps.

    Destroying Tinder would noticeably hike the value of lower value men.

    So maybe curbing Google and friends would allow our content back to its pre-2016 glory.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  30. @216

    Firstly, thanks for the civil reply, 216. it’s so much better than the stuff out of the unmedicated EAH.

    You bring up just one point, but for me, the regulation we are under is a whole lot more encompassing than the TECH Totalitarianism (VDare’s term?). Just to address the one issue in your comment here, I agree with you that these Social Media companies are out of hand. (I was about to write “monopolies”, but they really aren’t, as none of these are like the electric/gas company or water service that one really needs to live – on the grid at least. You CAN turn them off, or never join up.)

    However, do you expect the US Government to do a better job of making these guys stand down on the censorship? Maybe they would under just the right President or Congress, even if we could ever find one. When the wrong side gets in, they’ll be instructed to be just as censorious as they are now, only it’ll be additionally specifically anti-big-government speech that’ll really get the axe.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  31. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Her handlers will likely keep her away from the subject of crime giving her past as a prosecutor. One would also think that Joe’s handlers would have him better prepared next time.

  32. iffen says:
    @216

    “the Dissident movements” to describe a wider amount of groups that may not be right-wing.

    Thanks. It is absolutely hurtful when those on the right write the rest of us off.

  33. iffen says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    anti-immigration-invasion – yes, a hiatus on all immigration
    pro-white – not anti-white
    nationalist – yes, civic nationalism
    anti-globalism – yes, careful evaluation as to what benefits the nation and what does not

  34. Mark G. says:
    @216

    If the “Alt-Right” is roughly synonymous with being a Trump supporter then the Alt-Right won’t necessarily lead to smaller government since Trump being in office hasn’t led to smaller government. Even when he advocated things like a less interventionist foreign policy that could have led to smaller government it ended up not doing so. Trump has actually funneled more money towards the military-industrial complex. He also has little understanding of economics and how Fed policies are hurting the working class whites who helped elect him. He’s actually embraced a giant stock market bubble that only benefits the rich, as a sign of a healthy economy. I’ll admit he has to deal with a hostile Congress and media and that has especially hurt his immigration reform efforts but his overall lack of understanding of free market economics and libertarian criticisms of big government have helped to prevent him from having any desire to tackle out of control spending. When asked about the future debt crisis recently, his response was “I don’t worry about it because I won’t be here when it happens”. Trump may have been the lesser of two evils in the last election but he really doesn’t deserve the enthusiastic support of the Alt-Right and when they show him that kind of support it puts into question their knowledge and judgement.

    • Replies: @216
  35. Logan says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    LOL

    “Bussing” is also a more or less archaic synonym for “kissing.”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Logan
  36. 216 says:
    @Mark G.

    I actively discourage anyone from continuing to identify themselves as “Alt-Right”.

  37. @The Z Blog

    She may have stumbled into something politically useful for its own sake rather than just as a rhetorical device. We’ll know if it’s the former by whether or not she returns to it in the future.

  38. @Mark G.

    Those who don’t understand history are bound to repeat it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  39. @Black Death

    Elite liberalism is all about demanding people with fewer resources than you have involuntarily make sacrifices you are unwilling to voluntarily make yourself. It’s morally reprehensible.

  40. @216

    Why not just sell it as protecting free speech and the first amendment? We’re in the realm of the rhetorical here.

    • Replies: @216
  41. @Achmed E. Newman

    The key is to create legal precedents with huge damage payouts, a la Oberlin and hopefully Sandmann and Ngo.

    Congress passes legislation guaranteeing equal access to these platforms as they function as public utilities.

    Evidence surfaces that they are, despite this, still censoring Jame O’Keefe.

    O’Keefe sues for damages, wins, and is awarded $80 million.

    This more than anything else will put a serious dent in censorious practices.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  42. @Audacious Epigone

    Congress passes legislation guaranteeing equal access to these platforms as they function as public utilities.

    That’s not unreasonable to me, but there’s always unintended problems – is it Bill of Attainder just on a couple of companies, or will it apply to unz.com and Peak Stupidity? Yes, if they are somehow officially “public utilities” the situation changes.

    I’d read on VDare where there is some subsection of an already-existing law in which these companies can be thought of as “platforms” vs. “publishers”. (I hope I got the gist of this right.) It’s just another damn example of something President Trump could IMMEDIATELY change to take care of this problem. Does anyone on here remember the details? Sorry, I’m just not in the mood to look up section so-and-so of bill what-have-you today.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  43. @Logan

    Where and when? I’d never heard that one. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  44. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    Those who don’t understand history are bound to repeat it.

    Who was it that said that the one thing we learn from history is that no-one ever learns from history?

  45. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I sense a difference between throwing red meat to the base, and triangulating against Big Tech.

    We’re not making a “free speech” argument, we are making a “pro-regulation” argument to impinge on the “property rights” of the tech monopolies.

    Big Tech wants to be an advertiser-friendly hugbox. Leftists want the hugbox without the advertising, or to force Big Tech to share advertising revenue with legacy media journos.

    The Right says little about advertising, though Gab has tried to make hay from being a no-ads platform. Almost no one here would argue that we need to subsidize legacy media. The sausage fest here has minimal appreciation for the different female psychology that leads them to scream “harassment” at some brisk trolling.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  46. @Achmed E. Newman

    There was an internet privacy bill from the 1990s IIRC (though I’m not in a spot to look it up now either).

  47. @216

    Rhetorically bundle free speech with overall civil rights?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Your comment will appear after approval from the moderator.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS