Talk:False River Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

History of Racism[edit]

This article is dancing all around the consistent racist history of this school. It is known in Pointe Coupee as a school for whites only. The scholarship program was done away with to prevent African American students from attending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information, but this school has students of all races including African Americans, and has had them for quite some time. Please discontinue your vandalism on the article. Sf46 (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I retract my previous comment. Pointe Coupee is a paragon of diversity and integration. The obvious splendor and riches of the African American community in "Back-A-Town" demonstrate this clearly."—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 9:42, 04 June 2009 (UTC)

A school that was founded as a "segregation academy" (see referenced text in the history section of article) is clearly a valid topic for WikiProject Discrimination. Removal of that project's tag is clearly vandalism. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How does the cited reference fail verification? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the reference fails because the cited source does not state that the school is a segregation academy. The reference was added at or around the same time as the segregation academy categorization, so I'm assuming that this characterization is the information that the cite is supposing to support. Just my thoughts. Sf46 (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If the school was established for white children, deducing that it is a "Segregation Academy" is a deduction any person of normal intelligence can and will make, hence an exception to WP:SYNTH. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Disagree Using this source to assert that the school is or was a segregation academy is "deducing" or concluding facts not evident. The source never says that it is a segregation academy. If we had a creditable source calling it such, that would be one thing in my opinion. Or if there were a source stating that the school had a practice or policy of denying admittance to non-whites. Also I think that demonstrating cases of actually denying or attempting to deny admittance would warrant the characterization of segregation academy. Sf46 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Sf46, you are either quite young or incredibly naive. Schools like this did not openly advertise their policy of denying admittance to non-whites, since that was nominally illegal; but black people knew better than to seek admittance to such schools, since the consequences could range from being fired to various forms of violence against yourself and your family. I grew up in the South of this school's founding, and remember it well. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Mike, perhaps I am young and naive. I can tell you that I am not old enough to have been in school in 1969. I wasn't even born yet. You and GTWfan seem to have experience sets and viewpoints that I have not been exposed to. I suspect that I am not the only reader/editor on Wikipedia who is not fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to have been exposed to these same experiences. While the connection from A to B to C may seem automatic to you, for someone who has not been exposed to this information before it is not so automatic. I can tell you that yesterday was the first time I had ever heard the term "segregation academy". With that being the case, I am having trouble making the connection that to you seems automatic. Since I think the whole point of Wikipedia is to expand knowledge and understanding, I think that both the segregation academy characterization on this article and on the Segregation academy article itself needs to be better explained. I think they need something along the lines of further defining such a school as one that has or had written or unwritten official or unofficial policies to deny admittance of a certain ethnic group, or restrict admittance to a certain set. In other words a conscious effort to commit racial discrimination. A conscious effort to me would seem easier to make the connection. An inadvertent case would be harder for me to grasp. In other words, if a private school were founded around the same time frame, but it's attendance was exclusively or near exclusively white due to some reason such as the demographics in the particular geographical location containing few if any minorities, would that school still be considered a segregation academy? Sf46 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Your questions are quite reasonable; and it's certainly not your fault you're young! If a school is set up in a district which is nearly all white (or Gujarati, or whatever) and has a student body reflecting this, that is an accident of history. But in this case, the school was set up in a parish which is more than one-quarter black, and was clearly set up to keep white kids from having to go to school with black kids: that's the very definition of a segregation academy. Schools like this were often covertly or overtly funded with taxpayer dollars diverted from the public schools under various scams (the modern counterpart is the voucher schools we have here in Wisconsin, but that's an observation by a public school parent). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says otherwise? Segregation academy is a historical term, being used in a historical context. If being founded for whites only doesn't qualify it, what would? Note that the sentence says "founded as a segregation academy", it does not speak to or imply any current context. Current admission policies make no matter unless you can show a source saying that it wasn't founded for white kids.Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The short answer to the background is that after the Civil Rights acts of the late sixties, there were numerous schools founded all over the south (and to a lesser extent, elsewhere). They were founded with the express intent of circumventing the legally mandated integration. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is a source to demonstrate when it stopped being a segregation academy, that would be useful. Adding some clarity that it isn't one now, with that source, would be preferential in the lede. Sf46, it is pretty obvious that it was a segregation academy, which is a widely used descriptive term, not a legally defined term, so it seems perfectly logical and applicable to use here. Calling it by a common name isn't synth nor derogatory. I would recommend changing the lede to - "It was originally founded as a segregation academy in 1969" - which is more neutral and indicates that it no longer serves the same function, and if you can find the source, add that with the info in the lede as well. I also recommend less reverting and most discussion, but I'm glad to see the talk page is busy. Just as you can call a business or school "segregated" because they separated whites and blacks, even if the didn't use the specific term in the sources, you can clearly define the school as a segregation academy in the exact same manner. Not every segregated academy used the name "academy" in their name, for that matter. We can drag in some third opinions or DRN but I'm pretty confident that will be the outcome. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 06:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A variety of diverse backgrounds[edit]

Would someone like to explain what this clause means, why it should be in the article unsupported, and support it with something? It makes no sense to me: the students as a whole come from a variety of diverse backgroundsalf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Given how things have gone on this article in the past few months, I am betting it is some more remaining denial of history. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What this means, is that the students have a diverse background just as it states. Diversity comes in many flavors, including, but not limited to ethnic diversity. In other words the students come from rich families, poor families, different geographical areas around the school, white families, black families, Asian families, Hispanic families, farming families, business owning families, and quite a few more different backgrounds. Alf, I reverted your edit for the reason that I stated. Your original "edit", like so many others, buthchered on the article. It also butchered the sentence, leaving behind a grammatically incorrect run-on sentence. If you actually care about making constructive edits, instead of subtracting, please trying adding information.Sf46 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that only partial students come from non-diverse backgrounds. Your wording is only marginally sensible and completely unsourcable. A school with only a 3% minority population is not diverse, no matter how much rose colored paint you use. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I made a mistake when removing the clause. It happens to the best of us. Do you have some kind of source for your information about the "variety of diverse backgrounds"? This should be a secondary source discussing the issue so that we can see that anyone other than yourself actually thinks it's relevant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on False River Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)