[PASSED] Ending School Segregation

[Christian Democrats]

Rights of the child. Children have a right, by education, to develop competence to interact in a pluralistic society. Unless a child is physically unfit to attend a school or an undue hardship is imposed on the child by this requirement, member states must to the best of their ability advance this goal through schooling; to that end, among other things, they shall prohibit segregation and self-segregation of students by parental income, race, religion, or other protected classes.

This proposal is an affront to minority rights, and we're strongly AGAINST it. It partakes in the sort of anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic bigotry that have been prevalent in so many societies -- the xenophobic idea that populations of Catholics and Jews, in countries where they are minorities, are unpatriotic and therefore need to be forcibly assimilated through public schooling. This proposal, we add, also threatens the rights of indigenous peoples and linguistic minorities, who often prefer to "self-segregate" and have their children educated in community schools, which teach local languages and inculcate children with local customs. Delegates should see this proposal for what it is -- an attempt, under the false flag of desegregation, to require the forcible assimilation of minority groups to majority cultures.

Real-world examples:
https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/kkk_i49.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system

[Attempted Socialism]

Anything can be anti-Catholic if you're creative enough.

[Honeydewistania]

Anything can be anti-Catholic if you're creative enough.

It is a topic that does affect Catholicism indoctrination camps schools in many ways, such as no more single sex schools, multi religious schools all that blasphemy etc

[Attempted Socialism]

Anything can be anti-Catholic if you're creative enough.

It is a topic that does affect Catholicism indoctrination camps schools in many ways, such as no more single sex schools, multi religious schools all that blasphemy etc

That's not anti-Catholic, though. It's just that an abhorrent policy that some Catholics favour is harder to practise. In the Old Testament there's a law mandating you to kill your children if they curse/disrespect you. Outlawing the general killing of people even if they are your children and curse/disrespect you is not anti-Semitic. The trope that any progress is suddenly anti-Catholic is quite dumb, and the reliability with which a few onsite Catholics pull this alongside the prosecution card is laughable.

[Heavens Reach]

We're generally troubled with the mandate against self-segregation. Is there a strong argument for this addition to the resolution?

[South St Maarten]

IC: Full support for this resolution.

[Kenmoria]

We're generally troubled with the mandate against self-segregation. Is there a strong argument for this addition to the resolution?

(OOC: Imperium Anglorum’s response below elucidates why that was included. Self-segregation here refers to schools segregating themselves instead of government-level segregation.)

“I have a very precise issue with this proposal - the word ‘self-segregation’ in clause 1. If students are self-segregating, it doesn’t seem to be proportionate or reasonable to have the WA put a stop to this. If children want to make friendship groups based on a protected class: let them, because having international law put a stop to that would silly.”

Given the option to interpret 'self-segregation' at the school level and at the student-by-student level, only nations acting to their self-detriment would interpret 'self-segregation', which is contextualised only at the school level, to imply an obligation to spend the enormous time and resources to regulate interpersonal relationships.

[JC Cavs]

Just because private schools cost money doesn't always mean that children are going to be segregated, nor does it mean that the education is going to be of poor quality. Also, what if the child doesn't want to interact with the other children?

Since you haven't accounted for those two, I'm opposed to this.

So this is how I interpret this response—

School: You have to pay 100 thousand a year to go here.

Disadvantaged class excluded from socioeconomic opportunities on basis of skin colour: But I don't have 100 thousand.

School: Sucks to suck.

Me: Let's do something about that

Kyundao: But what if we pretend racism didn't exist?

I agree with Imperium Anglorum! Schools, especially private ones, create a setting in which some children are disadvantaged to other children due to factors like socioeconomics and race. The high entrance fees for private schools limit the number of families who can afford to pay that much for their child’s education. While private schools may not explicitly state that they are catering to specific groups of people, it is highly obvious that certain people are intended to not be included. Due to these instance, I fully support this to ensure that all children, no matter their economic status or race, are entitled to and have the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

[Christian Democrats]

It is a topic that does affect Catholicism indoctrination camps schools in many ways, such as no more single sex schools, multi religious schools all that blasphemy etc

That's not anti-Catholic, though. It's just that an abhorrent policy that some Catholics favour is harder to practise. In the Old Testament there's a law mandating you to kill your children if they curse/disrespect you. Outlawing the general killing of people even if they are your children and curse/disrespect you is not anti-Semitic. The trope that any progress is suddenly anti-Catholic is quite dumb, and the reliability with which a few onsite Catholics pull this alongside the prosecution card is laughable.

You're mistaken, ambassador, for a few reasons:

Discriminatory impact. Catholics and Jews choose private religious schools at substantially higher rates than the general population -- at least twice as often as non-Catholics and non-Jews according to the data. Any law that threatens private religious schooling will have a disproportionate impact on Catholics and Jews and, therefore, can fairly be criticized as anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic.

Discriminatory history. Catholics and Jews, as well as some other religious groups, have historically faced discrimination in public schools, where they have been subjected to disproportionate levels of abuse and bullying. In the nations where they are common, Catholic parochial schools and Jewish day schools were usually established as alternatives and havens for Catholic and Jewish students. The idea that Catholics and Jews need to be forcibly assimilated through compulsory public schooling has a sordid history linked with anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic bigotry.

Freedom of association. You call the practice of "self-segregation," at private expense I might add, "an abhorrent policy." But in truth, it's nothing other than an exercise of one's freedom of association. Freedom of association is a fundamental right, and the maintenance of Catholic parochial schools and Jewish day schools is not harmful to outsiders. If Catholic, Jews, and other religious minorities choose to educate their children alongside co-religionists, it's really nobody's business but their own. It's frankly appalling that you'd compare the practice of private schooling to killing children -- a false accusation that is not without historical precedent.

Moreover, your criticism does not address the additional concerns that we expressed respecting indigenous peoples and linguistic minorities. They too should enjoy the right to establish their own schools in which they teach their own children their own cultures and their own languages without undue interference. It's unclear to us -- and we're sure others -- why minorities shouldn't have the right to be left alone.

[Blueflarst]

Blueflarst notes that the actual resolution has no sense.
"It is only another populist resolution of Anglorum" Said the Imperator of Blueflarst
There is no school segregation on our country as there are no minorities in Blueflarst.
In Blueflarst you are a citizen or you are not and those whom were not got the boot before they could live on the country

[Blueflarst]

About the religious discrimination points, there is no such thing on Blueflarst as the state funded school system is completely secular and beliefs of different groups are shown within an impartial point of view as long as they do not promote human sacrifices, self mutilation or surrendering your life to someone.
Blueflarst education is based on evolution and self empowerment regardeless your beliefs

[Ardiveds]

Blueflarst notes that the actual resolution has no sense.
"It is only another populist resolution of Anglorum" Said the Imperator of Blueflarst
There is no school segregation on our country as there are no minorities in Blueflarst.
In Blueflarst you are a citizen or you are not and those whom were not got the boot before they could live on the country

"Ambassador, do you have any reason to believe the same is true for the rest of WA?"

[Attempted Socialism]

That's not anti-Catholic, though. It's just that an abhorrent policy that some Catholics favour is harder to practise. In the Old Testament there's a law mandating you to kill your children if they curse/disrespect you. Outlawing the general killing of people even if they are your children and curse/disrespect you is not anti-Semitic. The trope that any progress is suddenly anti-Catholic is quite dumb, and the reliability with which a few onsite Catholics pull this alongside the prosecution card is laughable.

You're mistaken, ambassador, for a few reasons:

While I love being called grandiose titles I don't have, if you're going to attribute me such titles I'd much prefer Tenured Professor and APSA Fellow.

Discriminatory impact. Catholics and Jews choose private religious schools at substantially higher rates than the general population -- at least twice as often as non-Catholics and non-Jews according to the data. Any law that threatens private religious schooling will have a disproportionate impact on Catholics and Jews and, therefore, can fairly be criticized as anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic.

Not really, no. This is what I meant, anything can be anti-Catholic if you're creative enough.

Discriminatory history. Catholics and Jews, as well as some other religious groups, have historically faced discrimination in public schools, where they have been subjected to disproportionate levels of abuse and bullying. In the nations where they are common, Catholic parochial schools and Jewish day schools were usually established as alternatives and havens for Catholic and Jewish students. The idea that Catholics and Jews need to be forcibly assimilated through compulsory public schooling has a sordid history linked with anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic bigotry.

Integrating these schools with reality is not bigotry, though. If they already follow the basic standards enumerated there's only the issue of not requiring e.g. statements of faith or church membership.
Though I like how concerned you are for Jewish minorities. Using Jews as a shield is a neat trick and a big development over the last 80 years.

Freedom of association. You call the practice of "self-segregation," at private expense I might add, "an abhorrent policy."

I don't, but thanks for playing. I called the practise of religious schools an abhorrent policy due to the indoctrination and infantilisation services they provide.

But in truth, it's nothing other than an exercise of one's freedom of association. Freedom of association is a fundamental right, and the maintenance of Catholic parochial schools and Jewish day schools is not harmful to outsiders. If Catholic, Jews, and other religious minorities choose to educate their children alongside co-religionists, it's really nobody's business but their own.

Well, it's the business of the state to ensure the children receive a proper education and are not limited in interaction to a separate society. If religious parents can't manage that on their own, they will be helped by the state to secure a favourable outcome. As long as these schools indoctrinate and segregate rather than teach, that's a legitimate reason to legislate. There's also not an issue with freedom of association. As is clear from the resolution, if Catholic schools are good enough, all they'll have to do is remove any requirement of faith and allow non-Catholics to attend. That's not a big ask.

It's frankly appalling that you'd compare the practice of private schooling to killing children -- a false accusation that is not without historical precedent.

You're really good at strawmanning. I can't tell if you've even read that Wikipedia article, because it is entirely unrelated to my point, though a decent example of projection. For the record, though, I think a comparison of the imagined parental right to kill or maim your own children, to the imagined parental right to indoctrinate or infantilise your children, is apt here, insofar that both can be outlawed without ever being "against" or "anti" religions that may allow or mandate either.

Moreover, your criticism does not address the additional concerns that we expressed respecting indigenous peoples and linguistic minorities. They too should enjoy the right to establish their own schools in which they teach their own children their own cultures and their own languages without undue interference. It's unclear to us -- and we're sure others -- why minorities shouldn't have the right to be left alone.

I thought you were joking.

[First And Only Archive]

I'd note here that IRL, integrating the children on minorities "for their own good" is exactly the same excuse the Chinese government is using to indoctrinate the children of Uighur Muslims in re-education centres.

Governments telling parents which schools are acceptable and which schools aren't is frequently deployed as a tool of tyranny.

Unfortunately, I think the majority of voters are not going to notice what this proposal is actually endorsing and will support it on the general feeling that pluralism and diversity must be good things. Certainly that's what my voting nation did, up to the point that it was pointed out to me the hidden riders here.

I'd suggest that there's very little chance that this vote will fail to pass, but there's a good chance that a well-constructed repeal -- or even better, a well-constructed proposal to lay out exceptions -- has a good chance of succeeding.

[Honeydewistania]

I'd note here that IRL, integrating the children on minorities "for their own good" is exactly the same excuse the Chinese government is using to indoctrinate the children of Uighur Muslims in re-education centres.

Governments telling parents which schools are acceptable and which schools aren't is frequently deployed as a tool of tyranny.

Unfortunately, I think the majority of voters are not going to notice what this proposal is actually endorsing and will support it on the general feeling that pluralism and diversity must be good things. Certainly that's what my voting nation did, up to the point that it was pointed out to me the hidden riders here.

I'd suggest that there's very little chance that this vote will fail to pass, but there's a good chance that a well-constructed repeal -- or even better, a well-constructed proposal to lay out exceptions -- has a good chance of succeeding.

I’m not sure, but wouldn’t ‘re-education camps’ be counted as an undue hardship, and therefore excludes these children from the mandate?

Discriminatory history. Catholics and Jews, as well as some other religious groups, have historically faced discrimination in public schools, where they have been subjected to disproportionate levels of abuse and bullying. In the nations where they are common, Catholic parochial schools and Jewish day schools were usually established as alternatives and havens for Catholic and Jewish students. The idea that Catholics and Jews need to be forcibly assimilated through compulsory public schooling has a sordid history linked with anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic bigotry.

Looks like you aren’t in compliance with Read the Resolurion Act, since Clause 3 clearly deals with this

[Definitely not Spartacus]

It pains me physically to support a resolution authored by IA, but I cannot tolerate the vote to fail. We vote in support.

[Honeydewistania]

It pains me physically to support a resolution authored by IA, but I cannot tolerate the vote to fail. We vote in support.

[First And Only Archive]

I think this legislation is essentially squishing together two distinct concepts.

One is the idea that minorities should not be excluded from mainstream schools on the basis of segregation. That's entirely reasonable, I think, few are going to argue with that save for far right extremists.

The other is the idea that minorities should not be allowed to found schools intended to cater to their own minority. That to me is more troublesome. I mean, I can get behind the idea that maybe a Catholic school shouldn't be allowed to exclude someone on the basis that they're non-Catholic. I'm not actually personally bothered if Catholics want to do that, but I can see that there's an argument there that it's discriminatory in some way.

However, I'm not sure I like the idea that a group of Catholics shouldn't be allowed to form a Catholic School that bases itself on Catholic values, and that Catholic parents shouldn't be allowed to pick that as their school of choice. I'm not 100% on whether that legislation would allow that or not. If a Catholic School were to say that "one of the rules of our school is that students attend Mass" or "part of our curriculum is teaching about Christ and the Catholic Church" then surely parents could simply choose whether or not to send their kids there? What about a school for Chinese kids that teaches Chinese language and history as core subjects in addition to the normal curriculum? What's wrong with a school teaching subjects that they consider important, and parents picking schools that teach the values and subjects THEY consider important?

I mean, I picked a school that was good for science, because I wanted my kids to have a good founding in science. However, I respect the right of other parents to prioritise art, or music, or bilingual education, or Catholicism. I don't want my kids to be in a school that emphasises learning Russian language and culture, but I sure as hell might if I was a Russian immigrant.

Equally, the prohibition against "segregation by parental income" seems to suggest that private schools in general would be banned, and that all schools would have to be free to access. After all, if you have no income at all as a parent, then you're kids are effectively excluded from any school with a price tag.

Is that part of what this legislation is proposing as well? Banning all private schools?

And as to "other protected classes" would that also ban "boys schools" from existing because men are a protected class compared to women?

Personally, I'd like to see this one struck down and replaced with much simpler legislation, that just says that "no child should be excluded from any school on the basis of ethnicity or religion".

That's something we could support.

[Zote Republic]

Rights of the child. Children have a right, by education, to develop competence to interact in a pluralistic society. Unless a child is physically unfit to attend a school or an undue hardship is imposed on the child by this requirement, member states must to the best of their ability advance this goal through schooling; to that end, among other things, they shall prohibit segregation and self-segregation of students by parental income, race, religion, or other protected classes.

Sounds like you're willing to take the choices away from parents who wish to send their children to schools as they please. Why should a governing body have the right to control where children are educated? We get the angle is to prevent segregation, but in the same light, the usage of "self-segregation" sticks up a whole bunch of red flags that this will not only be used to stop segregation of minority students, but serve as inroads to whittling away choice in education, and by extension, rights to self-determination for all citizenry.

Ensuring school quality. Member nations shall ensure that educational services not under their direct control meet or exceed the same standards as those under their direct control on the following criteria: educational goals, facilities, instructors' training, and other standards that member nations may by law or resolution create. Member nations may not use accreditation in a way that encourages segregation by classes in section 1.

So why are we obligated as a nation to ensure that your nation educates its children to some standard, and what if that standard is not quite as good as advertised? What is the point of being a sovereign entity if we have to ask to run ourselves? And what if a nation cannot afford to act as a check on other nations or barely afford to keep up with nations whose economies are larger, more specified, and more efficient? Do smaller nations get leeway? Or are we "violating international law" for being literally unable to keep up? And what do you propose the solution to that "problem" is?

[Kenmoria]

Rights of the child. Children have a right, by education, to develop competence to interact in a pluralistic society. Unless a child is physically unfit to attend a school or an undue hardship is imposed on the child by this requirement, member states must to the best of their ability advance this goal through schooling; to that end, among other things, they shall prohibit segregation and self-segregation of students by parental income, race, religion, or other protected classes.

Sounds like you're willing to take the choices away from parents who wish to send their children to schools as they please. Why should a governing body have the right to control where children are educated? We get the angle is to prevent segregation, but in the same light, the usage of "self-segregation" sticks up a whole bunch of red flags that this will not only be used to stop segregation of minority students, but serve as inroads to whittling away choice in education, and by extension, rights to self-determination for all citizenry.

(OOC: Self-segregation in this context refers to a school segregating its children by race, for example, rather than a governmental body doing so. It is still segregation, because segregation is definitionally something imposed by an authority rather than something voluntarily done.

Ensuring school quality. Member nations shall ensure that educational services not under their direct control meet or exceed the same standards as those under their direct control on the following criteria: educational goals, facilities, instructors' training, and other standards that member nations may by law or resolution create. Member nations may not use accreditation in a way that encourages segregation by classes in section 1.

So why are we obligated as a nation to ensure that your nation educates its children to some standard, and what if that standard is not quite as good as advertised? What is the point of being a sovereign entity if we have to ask to run ourselves? And what if a nation cannot afford to act as a check on other nations or barely afford to keep up with nations whose economies are larger, more specified, and more efficient? Do smaller nations get leeway? Or are we "violating international law" for being literally unable to keep up? And what do you propose the solution to that "problem" is?

This covers non-governmental schools, such as private schools, that are still within a member states jurisdiction, and declares that said schools must be up to the quality of governmental schools. I can see how this might be slightly confusingly worded, but it is intended to cover only educational institutions actually within a member state.)

[Ardiveds]

I'd note here that IRL, integrating the children on minorities "for their own good" is exactly the same excuse the Chinese government is using to indoctrinate the children of Uighur Muslims in re-education centres.

Governments telling parents which schools are acceptable and which schools aren't is frequently deployed as a tool of tyranny.

Unfortunately, I think the majority of voters are not going to notice what this proposal is actually endorsing and will support it on the general feeling that pluralism and diversity must be good things. Certainly that's what my voting nation did, up to the point that it was pointed out to me the hidden riders here.

I'd suggest that there's very little chance that this vote will fail to pass, but there's a good chance that a well-constructed repeal -- or even better, a well-constructed proposal to lay out exceptions -- has a good chance of succeeding.

OOC: Just like to remind you that this kind of indoctrination is currently legal even without this resolution and the last proposal attempting to make it illegal failed.

[Honeydewistania]

I think this legislation is essentially squishing together two distinct concepts.

One is the idea that minorities should not be excluded from mainstream schools on the basis of segregation. That's entirely reasonable, I think, few are going to argue with that save for far right extremists.

The other is the idea that minorities should not be allowed to found schools intended to cater to their own minority. That to me is more troublesome. I mean, I can get behind the idea that maybe a Catholic school shouldn't be allowed to exclude someone on the basis that they're non-Catholic. I'm not actually personally bothered if Catholics want to do that, but I can see that there's an argument there that it's discriminatory in some way.

However, I'm not sure I like the idea that a group of Catholics shouldn't be allowed to form a Catholic School that bases itself on Catholic values, and that Catholic parents shouldn't be allowed to pick that as their school of choice. I'm not 100% on whether that legislation would allow that or not. If a Catholic School were to say that "one of the rules of our school is that students attend Mass" or "part of our curriculum is teaching about Christ and the Catholic Church" then surely parents could simply choose whether or not to send their kids there? What about a school for Chinese kids that teaches Chinese language and history as core subjects in addition to the normal curriculum? What's wrong with a school teaching subjects that they consider important, and parents picking schools that teach the values and subjects THEY consider important?

I mean, I picked a school that was good for science, because I wanted my kids to have a good founding in science. However, I respect the right of other parents to prioritise art, or music, or bilingual education, or Catholicism. I don't want my kids to be in a school that emphasises learning Russian language and culture, but I sure as hell might if I was a Russian immigrant.

Equally, the prohibition against "segregation by parental income" seems to suggest that private schools in general would be banned, and that all schools would have to be free to access. After all, if you have no income at all as a parent, then you're kids are effectively excluded from any school with a price tag.

Is that part of what this legislation is proposing as well? Banning all private schools?

And as to "other protected classes" would that also ban "boys schools" from existing because men are a protected class compared to women?

Personally, I'd like to see this one struck down and replaced with much simpler legislation, that just says that "no child should be excluded from any school on the basis of ethnicity or religion".

That's something we could support.

You should write the repeal then

[Fre Cruth]

When speaking about the use of authority and administrative law, what does this entail? if a child is being bullied and there need to be step in, what might this look like?

[Heavens Reach]

I think this legislation is essentially squishing together two distinct concepts.

One is the idea that minorities should not be excluded from mainstream schools on the basis of segregation. That's entirely reasonable, I think, few are going to argue with that save for far right extremists.

The other is the idea that minorities should not be allowed to found schools intended to cater to their own minority. That to me is more troublesome. I mean, I can get behind the idea that maybe a Catholic school shouldn't be allowed to exclude someone on the basis that they're non-Catholic. I'm not actually personally bothered if Catholics want to do that, but I can see that there's an argument there that it's discriminatory in some way.

However, I'm not sure I like the idea that a group of Catholics shouldn't be allowed to form a Catholic School that bases itself on Catholic values, and that Catholic parents shouldn't be allowed to pick that as their school of choice. I'm not 100% on whether that legislation would allow that or not. If a Catholic School were to say that "one of the rules of our school is that students attend Mass" or "part of our curriculum is teaching about Christ and the Catholic Church" then surely parents could simply choose whether or not to send their kids there? What about a school for Chinese kids that teaches Chinese language and history as core subjects in addition to the normal curriculum? What's wrong with a school teaching subjects that they consider important, and parents picking schools that teach the values and subjects THEY consider important?

I mean, I picked a school that was good for science, because I wanted my kids to have a good founding in science. However, I respect the right of other parents to prioritise art, or music, or bilingual education, or Catholicism. I don't want my kids to be in a school that emphasises learning Russian language and culture, but I sure as hell might if I was a Russian immigrant.

Equally, the prohibition against "segregation by parental income" seems to suggest that private schools in general would be banned, and that all schools would have to be free to access. After all, if you have no income at all as a parent, then you're kids are effectively excluded from any school with a price tag.

Is that part of what this legislation is proposing as well? Banning all private schools?

And as to "other protected classes" would that also ban "boys schools" from existing because men are a protected class compared to women?

Personally, I'd like to see this one struck down and replaced with much simpler legislation, that just says that "no child should be excluded from any school on the basis of ethnicity or religion".

That's something we could support.

We support your objections, but your rewrite is too simple

[South World]

OOC: This proposal as written is an Honest Mistake violation for describing the WA as "august", when it is, in fact, "shit".

Then why are you still a member? Any nation that is a member of the WA is not sovereign.