Talk:Segregation academy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not just Virginia

• May I suggest expanding this article to include information about parallel phenomena in the rest of the south? Here is one newspaper article about similar schools in Alabama [1] --Dystopos 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Alabamaboy 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Very Offensive Entry!

This article implies that any private school started during this era was created as a haven for biggots, and that any person whose children attended such a school sent them there because they were biggots. This is not true and very offensive and insulting.

As one of those children, I know from first-hand experience exactly why I was sent to one of those schools. It had little to do with the race issues involved with desegregation. This was court-ordered desegregation that was imposed on the public school system over an extremely short period of time. In theory, mixing the racial and socioeconomic groups was a good idea. In practice, it created absolute havoc.

The sudden clash of the suburban whites with inner city blacks created many problems that were prominently covered in local newspapers and watched carefully by parents everywhere. Those who cared and could afford the cost, sent their children to safer schools. Of course, some were biggots, but most simply wanted a better education for their children.

There were violent attacks on students. The daughter of the police chief was raped in the bathroom with a plunger handle. We know this directly from the man himself. He had sent his daughter to public school to make an example for everyone else to send their children as well. This is how they were rewarded.

Children who had almost no interaction with minorities were suddenly immersed in "black studies." There was entirely too much emphasis on this type of thing. The text books included Malcom X and other "radicals" of the day in a very biased manner. No other races were featured in the texts. Children were told that their parents did not know what they were talking about and they should not listen to them. It all appeared to be a particularly sloppy job of social engineering.

The methods of transportation were chaotic. Children as young as five years old were placed on city buses (not school buses) with no chaperones or other adults caring for them. My mother rode some of these buses to see what was happening. She found a tiny little black girl crying in hysterics because she had no idea where she was going or what to do. Imagine putting such a small child on a public bus by herself. If given a choice, what parent allow this to happen?

These are but a few examples of the things that motivated parents to send their children to private schools. When the demand was recognized, many new schools were created. Many of them were created by churches since buildings already existed where classes could be held.

It was many years before the public school system settled down to something like normalcy, but it was never the same again. Academic standards faltered. Running in the halls and chewing gum were replaced with drugs and knives. I am very grateful that my parents cared enough about me to make sacrifices to send me to a private school. It could very well have saved my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginiasurvivor (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist as a sounding board for anyone's personal opinion toward the morality of segregation, African American studies, or even the existence of private schools or to pass judgement upon any school's leadership, academics, or policies in the past or present. It does, however, exist to document facts, and the fact remains that during the time period of desegregation, many schools were established in the Southern U.S. with disproportionately high populations of white students. It was a phenomena that was observed and noted then, and the remains of these programs can still be observed today. Regarldess of how much it offends you, the fact still stands that this did occur, it was widespread, and it is worthy of being documented. Your offense would best be directed at those who implemented those programs rather than those who seek to document their existence for posterity. --Teliwhy (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Seg Academy Neologism

It may be too late to mention this. But, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a forum to increase the usage of a neologism. For more information, please see WP:NEO. Discussion on this article goes back 8 years. None of the sources cited at the time used the term "segregation academy." In my research, it appears there are several years between the original Wikipedia article and the first reliable source to use the term- that is, news articles. Recent news articles have picked up the term, usually with scare_quotes. Essentially, the term is apparently a neologism; the genesis of which seems to be a Wikipedia article- which is inappropriate.Verdad (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your belief that "segregation academies" is a neologism suggests that your research has been insufficient to acquaint you with an extensive literature on the subject going back decades. A basic search on JSTOR, for example, returns a long list of scholarly articles that starts this way:

• "Segregation Academies and State Action," The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 82, No. 7 (Jun., 1973), pp. 1436-1461
• "The Segregation Academy and the Law," Anthony M. Champagne, The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Winter, 1973), pp. 58-66
• "The South's New Segregation Academies," John C. Walder, Allen D. Cleveland, The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1971), pp. 234-235, 238-239
• "More than Segregation Academies: The Growing Protestant Fundamentalist Schools," Virginia Davis Nordin, William Lloyd Turner, The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Feb., 1980), pp. 391-394
• "White Freedom Schools: The White Academy Movement in Eastern North Carolina, 1954-1973," Christopher Myers, The North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 81, No. 4 (OCTOBER 2004), pp. 393-425

Etc. PRRfan (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Just checked JSTOR. Thanks!

What is your opinion about scare quotes?Verdad (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? PRRfan (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

From WP article, "Enclosing a word or phrase in quotes can also convey a neutral attitude on the part of the writer, while distancing the writer from the terminology in question. The quotes are used to call attention to a neologism, special terminology (jargon), or a slang usage, or to indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, or metaphoric. They may indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's, for example if a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else."

Most sources use quotation marks when discussing seg academies. Is this what might be referred to as distancing? Verdad (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Most sources use quotation marks when discussing seg academies". What the quotes mean in each case where they appear will depend on context. Why don't you give specific examples of quotes that worry you? Also, it's ridiculous to assert that "most sources" use them. Did you count? Do you have any idea how many sources use them or don't? You're just making stuff up.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Past tense in lead sentence

It seems to me that we're better off using the historical present ("A segregation academy is..") rather than the past tense here. There are still segregation academies. See here and here for contemporary examples.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the future tense. "A segregation academy will be whatever alf says it is." (Queue rimshot) ;) --Verdad (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"were or are"

Red Slash, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "were or are". Are you suggesting that no one really knows whether segregation academies still exist? PRRfan (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I am, PRRfan. Unless I'm (as I often am) mistaken, there aren't really a lot of (or any?) reliable sources stating that there are any places still which are actively segregationalist. Red Slash 02:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. Still, I fear "were or are" is a bit confusing, not that I can think of a better way to put it right now. PRRfan (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

De jure and de facto

This article has a long and rich history. Its content has settled with consensus, even if each line is not supported by reference. Changes need either to be self-evident, supported by talk on this page, or supported by citation. I reverted some changes this morning that met none of those criteria.

One thing that is self-evident is the title of the article. It is one topic in a large and complicated field of study, I hope we can cover Segregation academies thoroughly and fairly here. It is not appropriate to make this a coatrack article. While de facto segregation may have increased in recent years (I heard a story about it on NPR yesterday), it is not the topic of this article. In that same radio piece was a description of public school district creation with the same effect of segregation, and the legal fights that ensued. That would make a fine topic for an article; it's not the subject of this one.

As a matter of housekeeping, WP doesn't like red links inserted on purpose, so I removed the wikilink to Bolingbrook. Recent additions to the list all have reliable sources, This school should be no different. Rhadow (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What copyright violations?

The deletions made by Diannaa -- and now hidden -- seem to include the list of schools, which has been developed over a number of years by WP editors, including citations. The overall list, as a general matter, has been published in federal court proceedings. Insofar as the format may be protected but the content not, and this article had its own, there is no reason under copyright to delete or hide this content. Rhadow (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Unicited assertions

I have reverted an edit by Red Slash that contained two uncited assertions:

1. "Segregation academies were private schools...", an assertion that is, in fact, the previous point of discussion on this very Talk page.
2. "...it is often difficult to determine whether modern-day private schools deliberately cater chiefly to white students or simply offer their programs to wealthier families."

PRRfan (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Point taken on the first one; we should probably put "was or is". As for the difficulty in determining if a school is racist on purpose--I mean, nowhere on the Carroll Academy website will you find either an ode to segregation or a non-white student, which means... is it intentionally segregationalist? Or only money-hungry (and only white families in the area are rich enough to pay)? Or neither--maybe the school is desperately trying to recruit people of any and all ethnicities, but only white people keep showing up. (Which you and I both know is probably not the case, but...) Red Slash 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I hear you; still, it's an assertion that's not necessarily self-evident. We ought to be able to find a cite saying it. PRRfan (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Should be findable... Red Slash 02:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is probably more descriptive to describe segregation academies in the past tense, were. The schools that still exist are no longer segregation academies as the term applied in the twentieth century. If they exist today, AND their student body does not reflect the make up of the local population, it is not the result of law. Rhadow (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Schools missing

The list given here is missing about 30 schools included in en:Category:Segregation academies. deisenbe (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello deisenbe -- It's a big POV problem to publish the list of former segregation academies in the mainspace without an explanation that that it is history. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, no new school gets added to the table in segregation academies without a reference, else it will upset someone and get tagged. If you disagree, please respond.
Charter schools and school vouchers are a different matter. They can get a wikilink, but need no deep discussion in this article. Rhadow (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My edits reverted

The opening of the article said in the first sentence “were or are”. I changed that to “are”, because many of them (the majority?) still exist. The article explains soon that none open today discriminate racially.

This was immediately changed by @Rhadow to “were”. I think that is a distortion. If the schools are being put in en:Category:Segregation academies (not “Former segregation academies”) they exist in the present.

I added under See also a link to Charter schools, which share with the segregation academies the idea of taking students out of regular schools and putting them in different ones with different administrations and different funding. With no explanation, @JaconaFrere immediately deleted it. deisenbe (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello deisenbe -- I believe that my edit to were is fair. Read the rest of the lede. The segregation academy is a thing of the past. It is no longer legal. Today, we have school vouchers and charter schools and gerrymandering and private schools with high tuition as problems, but not segregation academies. Rhadow (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

deisenbe, I'm sorry you take offense with my edit. Perhaps I could have given more explanation, but edit captions are short. While WP:Seealso does not specifically say categories must be excluded, it does says we shouldn't link things that are already in the article, and one of the categories you linked is already in the article, where it should be, as a category. I think it would be very appropriate to place a section about charters in the article, perhaps you could work on that? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

deisenbe, Rhadow, I think we can all agree that while segregated schools are at least technically illegal, we still have many schools in the South and elsewhere that are very segregated. Interestingly enough, did you know that New York City reportedly has the most segregated schools in the United States? [2]. Reading the Segregation academy article you'd think it was purely a southern thing. Jacona (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

New York "wins" at the state level as well. See [3].Jacona (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jacona -- De jure segregation of public schools was made illegal in 1954 with Brown. De jure segregation of private schools was made illegal in 1976 with Runyon. I propose that this article conclude in 1976. There is most certainly a need for articles that describe de facto segregation since then. Your New York article would fit there. Insofar as we are discussing this on a talk page, I think it's okay to discuss the relation of christian schools to segregation. The rule for segregation academies was that they were non-denominational. Look closely at the history and you will discover that many transmogrified into so-called christian schools when segregation was outlawed. It will take some tip-toeing to write it well, but it needs to be written. Today, we find that large school districts are being carved into smaller ones -- small districts that are predominantly one group or another. There are plenty of legal cases on that. See School integration in the United States. Rhadow (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The establishment of law and actual practice did not coincide. For instance, while Brown ruling was in 1954, it was nearly 20 years later that public schools integrated in some states. Similarly, all segregation academies did not conclude their business as such with Runyon. A cut-off date of 1976 would be disingenious, and far too restrictive.Jacona (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jacona -- Okay, I agree. That's why I said, carefully, made illegal, not ended. To my knowledge no segregation academies were founded after 1973. Many folded soon after 1976. For example Rock Hill Academy folded in 1979. Yes, many remained predominantly white for years after that. For example, Parklane Academy was still predominantly white when Britney Spears attended in 1995. The story about de jure segregation basically ends in 1976, even if the hangover lasted after that. The fight changed its nature and I believe the topic should be taken up in a new article.
The whole Segregation academy article, by virtue of the definition, ignores the hundreds of schools established before 1954 that had restrictive entrance policies. That's another topic. Rhadow (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m sorry, @JaconaFrere, I missed the link in the article. You’re right.

Is there any doubt that charter schools and vouchers reduced support for public schools? As it is now, it reads like it’s debatable. deisenbe (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• deisenbe asked, Is there any doubt that charter schools and vouchers reduced support for public schools? I would say that as a matter of current debate, there is. It would be a POV violation to write otherwise. You may disagree. Rhadow (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• deisenbe -- Please look again at the PBS reference. There are two subjects interviewed, Crew and Lynn. And I would argue that school tuition grants, vouchers, and charter schools are three descriptions of the same thing: public funds being used to support other than public schools. Please reconsider your failed verification tag. Rhadow (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations

I do not see any citations backing up the assertion that the liusted academies are segregation academies. I know they are, but that is not the point, we need citations for such assertions. If no citations are provided, I will remove the list of academies. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Calling a school a segregation academy is quite an accusation. And while I have no doubt that these are in fact segregation academies, for this article to be taken seriously, each school needs a citation. --N-k, 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As this article talks about currently funcitoning educational institutions, I am removing all accusations without citations. This is very negative stuff and while I have no doubt it is true, that is not good enough for inclusion. Please find citations and re-add if you want them in here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be quite difficult to find citations for this overwhelmingly obvious phenomenon, but I agree that citations and evidence should be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkeithphd (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it has been a long time since this discussion started, but I just filled in a couple of blanks with what I think are some good citations. The records still exist, but you're going to have to go to basement libraries or microfilm. I clicked through a couple of links and those schools' articles did have segregation academies in the text. I agree, I think we should be particularly keen to get good citations before the people with the memory die. It would also be a crime to let the schools whitewash (!) their pasts.
It might also be interesting to add a column for the year in which the school folded or the whites-only rule was abandoned. FWIW, I attended a white-only public school 1965-66; the school integrated the following year. Rhadow (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I spent a few hours adding citations where I could find them. There are still a few schools missing citations, but the article is in much better shape know. Billhpike (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Now fully cited

After a few hours of work today, I was able to find citations for every school on the list. Let's not add any new schools to the list unless we also have a citation to go with them. Billhpike (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

TODO: reconcile with category

I think there are some schools in Category:Segregation academies that are not listed here. Most of the schools in the category have citations in the article, so they should be easy to add to this list. Billhpike (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mississippi Association of Independent Schools has a list of its charter members on its website [4]. Benton County Educational Foundation, Ashland, MS Central Holmes Academy, Lexington, MS Claiborne Educational Foundation, Lorman, MS Copiah Educational Foundation, Crystal Springs, MS Council School Foundation, Jackson, MS Cruger-Tchula Academy, Cruger, MS East Holmes Academy, West, MS Forrest County School Foundation, Hattiesburg, MS Harrison County Private School, Gulfport, MS Indianola Educational Foundation, Indianola, MS Jefferson Davis Academy, Meridian, MS Lamar School, Meridian, MS Pillow Academy, Greenwood, MS Quitman Educational Foundation, Marks, MS Rebul Academy, Learned, MS Sharkey-Issaquena Academy, Rolling Fork, MS Shaw Educational Foundation, Shaw, MS Walnut Hills School, Vicksburg, MS

It also has a list of all its current members. These schools are not subject to Blaine amendment provisions. They get no state schoolbooks for example. They are not subject to oversight of the science curriculum, either. Rhadow (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Another historical list [5]] ‘’Coffey v. State Educational Finance Commission,[6] [296 F. Supp. 1389 ]‘’(S.D. Miss. 1969)

Ordering of states

In a general list, alphabetical is a logical ordering. In the context of this article, Virginia should be first. It was the first state to formulate a government response to Brown. It was the first to establish segregation academies. It established the model the other states mostly followed. Before we divide up the regions of Virginia, see whether it follows a chronological narrative. Otherwise, it just confuses the reader. My two cents. Rhadow (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Many states

North Carolina is missing, curiously, from the list. Rhadow (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The list seems exceedingly small. Memphis alone had many, but none made this list.Jacona (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jacona -- Insofar as this is a controversial article, we should be careful to have a reliable source before we add a school that was started specifically to facilitate segregation. We will offend people when we add a private school that just happened to be started between 1954 and about 1971. Rhadow (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I would never advocate adding unsourced content, Rhadow. For many of these schools good sources will not exist. Many will however. This list is a tiny fraction of such schools.Jacona (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jacona -- Court documents are rich in facts. Here is a great reference [7]. Check the addenda sections. Once you have a school name, some periodical will mention it. Those may require a look at microfilm. Rhadow (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Although I did not mention any Memphis School by name, many of them (the large, successful ones that are still around) have had articles created in the last couple of days! Another one is on the tip of my tongue, it no longer exists, maybe something along the lines of "White Station Christian Academy". Thanks to many editors for their efforts!Jacona (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Another one I've thought of, Desoto County Academy in Olive Branch, Mississippi. I know it's history, but I haven't found a source yet. Perhaps Rhadow or User:Billhpike might have one? Jacona (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve found references that hint at Desoto Academy’s discriminatory history, but nothing was explicit enough for me to add it to the list. Billhpike (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention in this article

It strikes me that the name of the school as it existed in the period 1954-1976 is the logical name to include in this article. If a wikilink points to an article with a new name for a school, fine. The point of this article is to describe history. Shame is not the intent, even if it is a byproduct. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: add "closed" column to List of SAs

After I added a "Closed" column to the List of schools founded as segregation academies, @Rhadow: reverted, saying in the edit summary: "Please discuss this on talk page, first. It'll be a lot of work to make complete." So: adding a "Closed" column 1) cleans up the "Established" dates column, allowing a cleaner presentation, data structure, and sorting; and 2) allows readers to sort academies by year of closure. I'm not sure why Rhadow believes that incomplete data should preclude such a column; many, many useful tables on WP lack complete data, and for that matter, even this one's "Established" column has gaps. But I'd certainly listen to a counterargument. PRRfan (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello PRRfan -- I am as excited to take on valuable work as anyone, but having done most of the heavy lifting to alphabetize the list and start on the references a few months ago, I would complain bitterly at having to go through 150 elements of a manually created table to add fifteen closures. Wikipedia tables are about the most editor-unfriendly features on the site.

I would propose getting rid of the list altogether and to devise a method to automagically gather the information in summary form from the categories of Segregation academies in (state). Those categories are well organized. I worked on them, too.

Take a copy of the article to your sandbox. Add the fourth column. That's easy. Then correct the alphabetization problem of Williamsburg Academy. Or, if you want, just update the opening date of Bollingbrook School to 1958. After you do that, tell me how much you'd like to look up each of the closing dates and update the table. With time, this list will get longer and its pain increase.

As a matter of scholarly interest, the opening date defines a segregation academy. What happened after that, closure, merger, or new mission, has as much to do with the demographics of the region as anything to do with segregation. If you started a school in Mississippi, it had a good chance to fail, because population there is decreasing. In Atlanta or North Carolina, a rising tide floats all boats.

As a matter of data administration, this list duplicates for the most part the information content of the categories, which are much easier to work with. In the database world, having two lists of the same data (or categories in our usage) is a no-no. By definition, one is always wrong. Having a single list or a category is the practical, low-effort, least-error method for the future.

As Wikipedia editors, we need to start with the end in mind. If we cannot envision an end to a project, then it will surely remain undone. I am very proud of the work our fellow editors Billhpike, JaconaFrere,Lokaydokay, Kintetsubuffalo, Deisenbe, Chipdukes and others have done. I suspect that they rather have root canals than page through this list again.

Frankly, I feel that adding a column is the easy part, like painting the half-pint sample can, then saying, "I like the color; would you like to finish the room?" I have been wrong before, so I will listen to others. Rhadow (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhadow, would it be so bad if the column were empty or sometimes contained "UNKNOWN" if the school is known to be closed but the year is not known? I think it adds a lot of value to see at a glance that the school has closed.Jacona (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Jacona -- Here's my take: if you vote yes on this one, then you volunteer to update the entire table. I'm not in favor (especially in a volunteer situation) for one person to create an obligation for others to work. Rhadow (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

PRRfan voluntarily started it, perhaps he could start with UNKNOWN for all schools known to be closed, blanks if unsure, year if known. Would that be acceptable to you, Rhadow, PRRfan?Jacona (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. (Here's the chart in a sandbox.) While I recognize that Rhadow wants not to start a column that will contain blanks, I confess I still don't understand why having a sortable column with partial information is less desirable than cramming that information into an unrelated column. (And by the way: thank you to Rhadow and everyone else who built this chart. I can appreciate all the work that went into it; I've made a few myself.) PRRfan (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I support adding a closed column. It is worth noting that a significant number of these schools have closed, but Wikipedia's coverage is biased towards schools that remain open. Billhpike (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Corrections and consistency

I see several issues in this article that need addressing, some minor, some probably not. Most of the inferences may be correct, but we need to be very careful when making claims that can only be inferred, not verified through sources. I jumped around a bit because I started to take a closer look after I found more than a few problems.

I typically don’t make changes other than grammatical fixes, and because this may require some larger rewrites, it’s probably for the best that I leave this on the talk page.

1) A 1972 report on school desegregation noted that segregation academies could be identified by the word "christian" or "church" in the school's name.[11]

The source says “…academies could usually be…” Omission of the word “usually” conveys an absolute statement of fact, when the source does not convey that message. Also, should “christian” be capitalized? In that particular citation, should “Church” be capitalized, as the source capitalized it (because those are part of proper titles)?

2) Ironically, because the Catholic Church had desegregated its schools before Brown, the Huguenot Academy (a segregation academy implicitly disavowing that Catholic policy by its title), merged with Blessed Sacrament High School, a nearby Catholic High School, to become Blessed Sacrament-Huguenot.

Can someone add the source about the merger? http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/0EB4FAF9AC7D6BB2?p=AWNB I also noticed from the source that the merger was between predominantly white and predominantly black schools. Perhaps this should get a mention?

3) At least one school in Mississippi, Carroll Academy, receives substantial funding from the segregationist Council of Conservative Citizens.[25]

This source does not make the above claim. However, I found one that did: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/council-conservative-citizens-funds-miss-private-schools Please update.

4) The list is iffy for some schools. Calling a school a segregation academy should require a verifiable claim, not inference or assumption.

Schools with evidence and/or quoted claims of segregationist policies and beliefs based on the cited sources: (Alabama schools) Houston Academy, Lowndes Academy, Pickens Academy. (Arkansas schools) Marvell Academy. (Florida schools) Glades Day School. (Louisiana schools) Bowling Green School, Caddo, Claiborne Academy, False River Academy, Glenbrook School, Grawood, West End Academy, Prytania. (Mississippi schools) Bayou Academy, Benton Academy, Carroll Academy, Heritage Academy, Starkville Academy. (South Carolina schools) Hammond School. (Texas schools) Lakehill Preparatory

Sources I could not check due to availability (print, subscription): (Alabama schools) Central Alabama, Escambia, Montgomery Academy. (Florida schools) Maclay School, Tallahassee Christian School. (Mississippi schools) Central Academy, Central Delta Academy, Central Holmes Academy, Copiah Academy, East Holmes, Hillcrest Christian, Indianola, Humphreys, Jackson Academy, Jackson Preparatory, Lamar, McCluer, North Sunflower Academy, Parklane, Pillow, Sharkey-Issaquena, Winston, Winona Christian, Woodland Hills. (North Carolina schools) Cape Fear Academy. (South Carolina) Clarendon Hall, Jefferson Davis, John C. Calhoun, Willington, Stonewall Jackson, Williamsburg, Robert E. Lee. (Tennessee schools) Harding Academy. (Texas schools) Trinity Christian Academy.

Schools with iffy evidence that requires inference or assumption: (Arkansas schools) Central Arkansas Christian, Hughes Academy, Jefferson Preparatory, Pulaski Academy, Tabernacle Baptist, West Memphis Christian. (Georgia schools) Southland Academy. (Louisiana schools) Guy Bueche, LeJeune, Livonia, Old River, Tenth Ward. (Mississippi schools) Canton Academy, Deer Creek, East Holmes, Cruger-Tchula, Madison-Ridgeland Academy, Strider. (North Carolina Schools) Arendell Parrot Academy, Lawrence Academy. (South Carolina schools) Bowman Academy, Sea Island. (Tennessee schools) Brentwood Academy, Franklin Road. (Texas schools) Northwest Academy

Notes: The source for Valwood School in Georgia would cause it to fall under iffy. However, this source has more direct statements: http://valdostadailytimes.com/letters/x546439290/Letter-to-the-editor-for-October-18-2009/print

The source for Washington School in Mississippi makes the claim that the school was created to avoid white children attending integrated schools. However, the sentence seems to be put in as an afterthought with no support or follow-up.

Calhoun Academy in South Carolina is an interesting one. According to the source, while the school did not demonstrate any overtly discriminatory policies, the court found that the school being solely white and worse off than the public schools in terms of material did give merit to some form of discrimination.

The source PDF for Wade Hampton Academy in South Carolina was broken for me.

The source for Wilson Hall in South Carolina is a Masters Thesis. However, the paper does cite a 1982 Time article about the school losing its tax exempt status likely for discriminatory reasons. Perhaps that would be a better source?

The source for Briarcrest in Tennessee is iffy and then not. The article clearly shows hostility toward minorities, but the hostility seems to arise from the parents and students.

4a)

Clarification: What I mean by iffy is based on the lead sentence of the article.

“Segregation academies were private schools in the Southern United States founded in the mid-20th century by white parents to avoid having their children in desegregated public schools.”

The lead gives a clear reason for the foundation of those schools. However, the sources used for the iffy schools does not give solid evidence to support that conclusion. For example, and I’ll use sources that apply to multiple schools:

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=9384 says,

In one section that mentions multiple schools: “The private school movement was more active in Pulaski County than in any other single county in Arkansas and was largely a response to the introduction of “forced busing.”

http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-03142007-161353/ says,

“Why was there such an uprising of private schools around 1970? By 1971, Nashville finally began busing students to implement integration in schools.”

Busing was rather contentious across all racial lines. Is it a valid reason to pull your children out of the public school system? Sure. Was it simply a convenient excuse? Probably. Still, disliking busing also does not automatically make a person a racist or segregationist.

Avoiding busing as a reason for these academies' foundation is different from the reason in the lead, which is very specific. Does the definition need to be more broad? How broad?

I believe we should tread lightly here due to the contentiousness of this topic. Many of these schools are still around, so all the ducks should be in a row in terms of any claims. That could start with some consistency on what evidence must be included for a school to be listed here.

Ukvilly (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)UkVilly

Definitions and reference integrity

Thank you, Ukvilly, for holding us all to high standards here. I have been working on this group of articles for several months now.

Segregation academy is an inclusive terms for an institution established between 1954 and about 1970 with the intent to have an all-white student body. I believe the editors involved have been diligent to provide references. The best articles include a quote from an administrator, patron, or politician. As far as I am concerned, a reference that documents zero black attendance is proof. In some cases, yes, the references are original sources.

In many articles, the assertion that a school was a segregation academy is followed by a qualifying clause, for example, "in response to busing", or in response to Brown. Personally, I have not edited that out. If the article is less contentious with that in, I figure that's a fair nod to WP:NPOV. In my view however, busing is a motte and bailey defense.

If this were a legal brief, we could substitute Paragraph (1) School, which was defined by the courts in Green v. Connally (1971). Our current term is better for an encyclopedia.

You are right that some of these schools are still around. One, Franklin Road Academy, hired a PR consultant to delete the school's history. One possibility for us is to move the segregation academy assertion from the lede to the History section in all cases. That way a Google search doesn't put the segregation academy text in the upper right corner of the search screen. On the other hand, I stand by each of the assertions of segregation that I have looked at. I have personally edited many.

As to the connection between Christian schools and segregation, I have discussed this privately with other editors. It is a minefield. In some states, particularly Virginia, government support and approval required the school to certify that it was non sectarian. In other states, not so much. We have intentionally stayed away from this tricky topic.

I agree that we all need to be diligent in referencing these articles. Each reference needs a look when we open an article for editing. I do not think the list in Segregation academy needs to be changed in content. Every row has a reference. Most are supported by articles. I would appreciate a better way to edit it, though. I was the one who alphabetized it. That was surely a job for a mule. I wish there was a better way to edit and present it.

Thanks for you interest, we look forward to your continued involvement. Rhadow (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rhadow,

Thank you for the reply. I apologize if some of my thoughts were not succinct. After I clicked through and read hundreds of sources, my mind started to turn to mush. I also realized that I had not even checked Virginia schools (I have now). All those sources turned out clear except Prince Edward, which I could not check due to the source type. I do have a few notes.

Bollingbrook School foundation is blank. The date is 1958: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/47754715/

Robert E. Lee School in Virginia opened in 1958, not 1959, according to the source (the permanent location opened in 1959, which may be why it has the 1959 foundation date). “And we used that for the original elementary school known as Robert E. Lee School. And we started that operating in September of 1958 with a core of teachers who had been Venable School teachers, and they were with us from the very beginning.”

The source for South Hampton Academy is a dissertation, and in my opinion the author seems to skirt around the issues with some vague wording. I got the feeling the school was a segregation academy, but I had to check other sources to make sure. This source, https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/FranklinCity/145-5012_Hayden_High_School_2012_NRHP_FINAL.pdf, states the point clearly. However, the statement from that source is taken from “Southampton Academy Began With New Building; 158 Students,” The Tidewater News, March 16, 1970, p.6 Perhaps someone can find that item?

End notes for Virginia.

I am in agreement with that the intent of the article, so I hope I do not come across as combative. But I am trying to help the stability of the article. While I personally agree with your definition, the lede definition can exclude some schools that fit your definition on a technicality. I was hoping we could get the definition to be more encompassing. That way we can avoid any high-energy objections, which you already seem to have encountered. Of course, I also understand that any changes can require additional sourcing, which may make it easier or more difficult to find that "smoking gun."

As for the qualifying clauses (..in response to..), my concerns are chronological consistency, not necessarily if those clauses are qualified. I'll leave that for the NPOV police. In my source checking, I noticed that the majority of schools that opened before 1970 were also the easiest to link to discriminatory policies, the easiest to call segregation academies based on the lede definition, and the easiest to link to Brown because the order for busing had yet to happen. The schools that opened after 1970 seemed a bit more difficult because of the busing bit. Should we make sure those schools are linked to desegregation busing instead of Brown? Unless we have sources that indicates otherwise, it becomes more difficult to defend a claim that a school opened in response to a not-so-recent court order.

I honestly had not visited too many school pages (just those for when I needed more information) until I saw the comments about editing those pages. My OCD almost went overboard (not from you!); those pages seriously lack consistency in the layout. But I see what you mean on the lede and Google search. Whatever you all decide, I just think it needs to be consistent. Some schools have it in the lede, most have it in the history, or background, the lede with nothing else (heh), and I even saw a few that had the same information repeated in the lede and body. Perhaps a good bit in the "history" section would do? Yes, I understand it is not the purvey of this article editing to fix those pages, but wow do those inconsistencies kill me.

As always, I'm more than happy to check sources and try to offer an objective opinion.

Ukvilly (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific responses to Ukvilly

(1) and (2) Christian and Churches

As I said before, "As to the connection between Christian schools and segregation, I have discussed this privately with other editors. It is a minefield. In some states, particularly Virginia, government support and approval required the school to certify that it was non sectarian. In other states, not so much. We have intentionally stayed away from this tricky topic." The source says "usually." I would have no objection to seeing this assertion deleted. It's weak sauce, and likely to generate argument.

Inline reply to Rhadow I think that this is reasonably well sources. I've added the term "usually" to the sentence. Billhpike (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As to Blessed Sacrament Huguenot Catholic School, I think the article has sufficient references, including this quote: "And Huguenot was formed at the time of integration to preserve segregation."

(3) Carroll Academy

The Atlantic is reputable. The reference seems sufficient to me. An article would be better.

Inline reply to Rhadow I agree. I've added a cite to the SPLC study, as well as a NYT article on the topic. Billhpike (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(4) References

Good references

At least some are unambiguous.

Difficult to find references

I worked on many of these articles myself. I believe that a look at the blue-linked articles will show good citations. If not, let's have a list of specifics.

Iffy references requiring synthesis

I worked on many of these articles myself. I believe that a look at the blue-linked articles will show good citations. If not, let's have a list of specifics. Valwood School -- Let's update the article with a better reference.

Washington School (Mississippi) -- Sometimes the sky is blue.

Calhoun Academy (Mississippi) needs some formatting. When the judge says so, I tend to believe. Same for Calhoun Academy (South Carolina).

(4a) Briarcrest Christian School

When white parents avoid having their children in desegregated public schools, do you think it is the desegregated or the public they objected to? The kids were in public schools prior. This is the same motte and bailey argument as against busing. For clarity's sake, we could edit out all the qualifying clauses. That is not my recommendation, however.

I agree that a consistent (and high) standard of evidence should apply to all these articles. Rhadow (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhadow: Since you added section headings, I've replied inline so the conversation is easier to follow.

Segregation academy until proven otherwise

Since @Rhadow suggested that others weigh in, I think any private school founded between 1954 and about 1974, in a state where schools were racially segregated, should be considered a segregation academy unless there's evidence otherwise. Busing doesn't change that.

I can add, since I'm the one who saw the documentation (and also lived there) that Maclay School and North Florida Christian were definitely segregation academies. See the comment from the Leon County school chief in History of Tallahassee, Florida#Desegregation.

I wrote 11 articles on Florida's 11 new black junior colleges (Gibbs Junior College is a good start) founded during that period, which were all founded to avoid integration. There are very few articles on the segregated black K-12 schools that closed during this period, like Roosevelt High School in West Palm Beach. Something I may work on. deisenbe (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! There's very little on the black schools, I've been working on that, albeit very slowly. I'm distracted by other things, like work, and other wikipedia interests. Racially motivated lynchings for instance. I'm not 100% with you on your first statement, however. I'm looking for some sort of reliable source before I will mark a school as a segregation academy, even when I have personal knowledge that it's true. I wish more of the black newspapers were available online.Jacona (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think any detailed discussion of sourcing should talk place on the talk pages of the individual schools, instead of at this article. Many of the school articles have multiple sources, some of which are stronger than those used here. Billhpike (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard wording

"Acme School was founded in 1969 as a segregation academy" is a simple declarative sentence. Here is an example of a deflective statement that attempts to dilute the message: "Although the school is open today to students of all races, it was founded by white parents, one of several segregation academies started in response to the federally mandated racial integration of Leon County Schools." Similarly, I believe this construction is not encyclopedic: "has a controversial history as a segregation academy."

References

• Wikipedia has no rules. That's my invitation to propose a couple for the category:segregation academies. By my count, we are likely to face a simultaneous challenge to these six articles:
  • Franklin Road Academy
  • Harding Academy (Nashville)
  • Lake Highland Preparatory School
  • The Heritage School, Newnan
  • Jackson Preparatory School
  • Stratford Academy

It will be easier for us if we respond with approximately the same message and be prepared to show that similar schools are described similarly. I'm not opposed to making the segregation academy assertion in the first sentence of the History section, rather than in the lede. As to the assertion that a school was a segregation academy we should point to a common definition: Segregation academy is an inclusive terms for an institution established between 1954 and about 1974 with the intent to have an all-white student body. Sources that support an assertion that the school was a segregation academy include (a) a description as one in a book, journal article, or periodical article, (b) inclusion in a federal civil rights report, or inclusion in an IRS list of schools whose tax-exemption was removed or denied for segregation policies. The best articles have a quote from the founder or principal. No conclusions can be drawn from enrollment statistics at the school's establishment or the year of establishment. Both are circumstantial evidence that should trigger more research.

We should point new editors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. That way they don't go off on a creative writing spree. Some need to be pointed to WP:COI. Rhadow (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I am getting flashbacks to my time in the Scientology debacle.

As for the potential updated definition, I have concerns with the word “intent.” Intent is difficult to show unless you have someone or something on the record—a quote that shows a desire to turn away minorities (fairly obvious) or a policy/record that demonstrates a clearly discriminatory admissions policy (court decision, etc).

I went to each of those school pages and checked sources versus the article statements to see where contestations may have merit. The following are my observations:

Franklin Road Academy: Segregation Academy statement in the lede, which is repeated in the history. The Jennifer Dyer statement actually says something different from the article statement. I would probably use the straight quote from her paper, as to avoid any NPOV disputes. I think you could get away with the word “prominently” in the bit about the Confederate flag, but you might also change it to what the source says: “flag-bearer waves…”

The second paragraph with the quote from the headmaster is a powerful statement, and as such it should probably be fully-quoted. The line about “applications” tripling should be “inquiries.” They are different things (but since we’ve already been through a first busing stage and increased interest in the aftermath, that sentence could be omitted). I noticed from the source that shows that the school had only one black student in 1980 also says that the first black student enrolled the year before. Should that be included?

I’m not sure about using so much of the editorial source in response to no longer flying the Confederate flag, but that stems from me not knowing how long the quoted individual was involved with the school (this is more of me making an eye-narrowing rather than definitive concern).

I found nothing in the source that specifically linked the change to the Confederate imagery as a result of the unease from Dennis Harrison. I saw the quote about his concern, but did his concern ever make it into the decision making process? Perhaps change it to simply show his concern?

Harding Academy (Nashville): Nothing, because this page has been merged with Belle Meade, Tennessee.

Lake Highland Preparatory: Segregation Academy statement in the lede. The statement sources appear good, but the source material for the quote that blacks have never applied omits the part about a non-discriminatory admissions policy. This could fall under cherry-picking.

The Heritage School, Newnan: The article statement about the IRS, and the source material are in conflict. The source does not state that any of those schools lost their IRS tax-exemption status in 1982 (the article is from 1982). Furthermore, the source states that the schools listed were “ineligible for tax-deductible contributions or were involved in litigation concerning revocations of their tax-exempt status.” Did the school actually have its tax-exempt status removed? Was it one of the schools involved in litigation? If so, did it win, lose, or did the case simply go away due to the new Reagan administration policy?

Jackson Preparatory School: Segregation Academy statement in the lede, which is repeated in the history. Unfortunately, I could not check most of the print sources or find scans of the newspaper sources. In terms of article quality, around the third paragraph of the history, I got the sense of “beating a dead horse”—the reader likely gets the point well beforehand. That is likely because the appearance of a chronological history of the school, which is mostly just statements about the early history given at later points in time.

Stratford Academy: Segregation Academy in the lede. I noticed only one source to article issue. The article statement “The founders viewed the desegregation of Bibb County public schools as an "impending crisis"” is definitive, while the source does not mention desegregation. The sentence after the quote seems to offer a counter to my concern, but Google books cut off the next page (and half the potentially countering statement).

End specific notes.

These articles use more sources from the time, with more information from all sides, so I see a potential minefield of WP:NPOV claims. To avoid any issues, I think that we should make sure all quotes are fully used with all the context. Rewording quotes just opens the door for contestations.

To solve some potential issues, I propose that one of the following statements be used in the relevant school’s history, depending on the evidence:

Schools that opened in ANY YEAR within the desegregation period and have documented history of discriminatory practices (the easiest to call segregation academies): SCHOOL_NAME opened in YEAR in response to school integration

Schools that opened before 1970 (before busing) that have sources that use circumstantial evidence: SCHOOL_NAME opened in YEAR during the period of school integration.

Schools that opened after the busing decision and have circumstantial evidence are a bit trickier. I struggled on how to word this without dilution but still getting the point across without making unsupported claims. I feel that these schools need a sourced, no-way-to-be-misinterpreted statement of being a segregation academy. That way we can at least use the source quote if all other evidence is circumstantial. I’ll keep thinking about it.

Ukvilly (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ukvilly -- I sense that you, as I am, are an inductive thinker. You look at specifics and develop generalities. We both need to be more deductive, working from the top down. My first suggestion is to move the segregation academy assertions to History. Second, to make a simple, declarative statement, "Acme Academy was founded in 1968 as a segregation academy." If we want to add another sentence -- another assertion -- about Brown or busing, that's fine. To make the fundamental assertion well referenced ... well, I described my thoughts already.

In my view, there is no difference between a reaction to Brown or to busing. In Virginia, the entire episode of school openings was done by 1969. I went to a segregated public school in the fall of 1965 and the same school, integrated, in the fall of 1966. In the Deep South, they were five years behind. State governments were more supportive and the federal cases took longer to be adjudicated. Busing is fig leaf. We are talking about schools that drive football teams four hours to play inside their league; to wit: Riverdale Academy (Louisiana). When every town for a hundred miles around is 92% black, busing doesn't have the same effect as in New Jersey or Wisconsin. Rhadow (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhadow, we seem to be in agreement on about 90% of the issues. I think our differences in opinion stem from two items (correct me if I’m wrong):

The first is the scope of the definition (not necessarily the definition itself): If we operate on the deductive method, as you recommend, our hypothesis becomes a synthesis of your proposed declarative statement and the definition in the lede, e.g., “Acme Academy is a private school founded in 1968 by white parents to avoid having their children in desegregated public schools.”

Now, how do we offer sufficient evidence that the hypothesis is correct? For such a contentious issue, the evidence should fit the definition, the definition should fit the evidence, and the evidence must be solid. I think that exists for numerous schools. For other schools, the evidence is too circumstantial for me to reach a firm label. For those schools, I believe we can still arrive at a fair history of the circumstances that surround their foundations.

The second is what I call the direct-catalyst. We have two major events in regard to the foundation of these schools—Brown and busing. Obviously, it is impossible to link a school’s decision to open as a result of busing if the school opened years before the decision. But we must take the timing into consideration for schools that opened after busing began, especially when there is no firm evidence that pushes the school into the segregation academy article definition. The fact that the criticisms section of Desegregation busing has reputable sources that show the near-unanimous unpopularity of busing can act as a strike against any statement that the reason for the school’s foundation was opposition to desegregation when no evidence clearly makes that conclusion, else I can see the WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V tags flying like crazy.

Ukvilly (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ukvilly -- We are in a bit of hole, then. We already accepted that there is such a thing as a segregation academy. The term is used elsewhere by reputable sources. We adopted it. There are 120 articles that depend on the term. We owe it to the readers to use a common definition. As to intent as I used it, it's an easily proven assertion. In Coffey, the court defined it as "no Negro students" or "no Negro students admitted." That's unambiguous.

As to busing, yes, I agree it was a real issue in the north. Putting your kid on a school bus cross town was an inconvenience when there was a school a mile away. It would allow students of various neighborhoods and various races to mix. In the Mississippi Delta, you could ship students a hundred miles from home, but it would make no difference. The whole region was seventy-two percent black. The simple explanation is that the white people there didn't want their kids going to school with black children. The headlines in the Boston Globe provided good cover. As far as I am concerned, failing to admit any blacks and flying the stars and bars for another fifteen years confirms it, even it it doesn't prove it.

We have two editors in this conversation who believe that all (or at least the preponderance) of the private schools established between 1954 and 1974 had a racial motivation. I only care about the 120 or 200 about which we make the assertion. If we make that assertion, the references need to be solid and the assertion unambiguous. Otherwise, weasel words will populate every one of those school articles. Weasel words are the indicator of a logical fallacy, the motte and bailey defense.

As to direct-catalyst, perhaps we should argue whether Brown and busing were two events. There is a theory of history developing now that WWI and WWII were the same conflict with a twenty year break. Lawyers argued after 9/11 whether the loss of the North Tower and the South Tower were two events or one. I assert that Brown was the finding and busing the remedy. They are simply two phases of the same movement. To say that some private schools in that south were organized in response to Brown and others in response to busing is a distinction without a difference. Any school established in response to either is a segregation academy.

I'm enjoying this and looking forward to your thoughtful response. Rhadow (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Morning Rhadow,

I think my hesitance in labeling some of those schools stems from a similar situation that occurred in the Scientology debacle many years ago. Personally, I think Scientology is a cult. Many reputable sociologists agree with that contention. Several countries have labeled Scientology as a cult. Time Magazine, which I imagine we’d all agree is a reputable source, even called Scientology a cult. You can go through the talk pages and find many people who agree (the “is a cult” argument seemed to get a new Talk section once a month). The only people who seemed to disagree were Scientologists.

The definition of Cult is magnitudes more broad than the definition of Segregation Academy (in terms of their subjects), yet the Scientology article does not make a declarative statement that Scientology is a cult, even with all those sources and opinions that clearly say otherwise. The article has a line that some critics accuse of it being a cult, but there are no firm statements in the article. Even well-documented scandals got diluted and toned down. In the end, most contentious statements got struck for violating WP:NPOV. All that hard work and research was undone.

Since that incident, I tend to look at what works against a claim rather than what works for it, no matter how strongly I feel for the pro-position. Otherwise, someone else will, objections and rewrites happen, and more folks get involved. Somewhere along the line the whole premise is changed or diluted—weasel words galore.

This article involves is an important topic that needs to be addressed. Schools should not be able to “whitewash” their history. But often times the way of telling a neutral history is to simply allow that history to stand alone (let the reader to make their own interpretation).

As always, thank you for conversing with me on this matter.

Ukvilly (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ukvilly -- I understand that you are arguing against labeling, but I fail to grasp what you are arguing for. Do you recommend that we delete the category:segregation academies and let each reader draw his or own conclusion? If we do that, we might as well delete the segregation academy article too. I believe that the reader is smart enough to come to a conclusion after reading them. I know for a fact that the reader doesn't have the time to go to the references for 120 articles. They won't. As a result, all of this history will go down the drain.

You make a good suggestion, that we walk in others' shoes: "what works against a claim rather than what works for it." Let's say that you are a parent or the headmaster of a school that, two generations ago, had a policy of discrimination. It's not part of the school's culture today. It is a target for whitewashing. There are several avenues of attack:

1. Direct attack. Call it libelous and offensive. The facts don't matter if you yell loud enough.
2. Claim Christian education. Race had nothing to do with it. We just wanted our child to pray and be taught creationism.
3. Claim No busing. Race had nothing to do with it. We just wanted our child not to ride a school bus forty-five minutes each way.
4. Think to yourself So long ago. Most people have forgotten about this ugliness. After it's deleted, everyone else will too.

(1) Doesn't fly at Wikipedia (4) Works pretty well at Wikipedia, if you do it quietly. (2) and (3) are balderdash. There are plenty of court records and contemporaneous quotes.

History is not happy subject, unless you describe it some intellectually dishonest way. "America was great in the 1950s, when we were fresh off a victory in the war and creating the baby boom." Or some pastel version of the Antebellum South. We worship the Founding Fathers ... conventionally forgetting, "three fifths of all other persons."

If you don't want to relive the Scientology discussion, maybe this one is not for you either. But I hope it is. Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhadow,

I am not at all suggesting the deletion of this article. I look forward to seeing it expand and helping out where I can.

My concerns stem from the limitations self-imposed by the scope. We have a definition in the lede; it is specific. I am also at a loss on how to fix it because every time I think of a more encompassing definition, I can’t find a source that supports a definition with a better scope.

As for your numbered points, I agree on 1 and 4. But to just outright dismiss 2 and 3 requires a bit more.

For #2. I found this in the sources of the schools you listed yesterday. I included as much of the text as possible to provide full context (not cherrypicking). (https://www.newspapers.com/image/112131324/)

“To dismiss the other schools as “segregation academies” is to disregard the multiple factors, including unique educational or religious philosophies, that are part of their appeal. Yet to ignore the dates of their foundings would be to gloss over the fact that first the threat and then the reality of public school desegregation contributed to their growth.”

For #3. To say this one is balderdash is a bit more disputable; just look at the criticism section of Desegregation busing.

However, here is a more recent poll, from just last year. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/new-poll-data-underscore-better-ways-talk-school-integration/

In that poll, 70% of parents said that their child attending a racially diverse school was at least somewhat important. But when asked if they would trade a longer commute for a more racially diverse school versus a closer commute for a less diverse school, only 25% said they would prefer the longer commute.

That is today’s attitudes. They were much worse in the 70s, based on the other polls. Because of the overwhelming numbers, the reason for leaving the public school system of “I dislike busing” cannot simply be tossed aside.

Even this published study from 1975, https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5714.html suggests something else: “At the same time polls reveal strong support for school integration among both blacks and whites, suggesting that latent racism is not the cause of antibusing opinions.”

Another source from the Segregation Academy article even demonstrates such dislike (it is also reworded in the article in such a way that the meaning is wrong (see note)). http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-03142007-161353/

“Why was there such an uprising of private schools around 1970? By 1971, Nashville finally began busing students to implement integration in schools. A decade later, over 20,000 White students had left Nashville public schools due to the resistance of busing.”

All I’m saying is that these reasons have support behind them. No matter what I, you, or anyone else thinks is the reason for these schools’ foundations, we need firm evidence that fits into the definition and the claim. WP:NOTTRUTH

(note): The article says “Many segregation academies claimed they were established to provide a "Christian education" but the sociologist Jennifer Dyer has argued that such claims were simply a "guise" for the schools' actual objective of allowing parents to avoid enrolling their children in racially integrated public schools.”

The source says: “These were the “White flight” schools where parents could send their children under the guise, conscious or unconscious, of proclaimed “Christian” values, a safer environment, and more sound education.”

The rewording is basically saying that the schools had an ulterior motive hidden beneath the school’s claim of “Christian” values. What the author is actually saying is that the parents enrolled their children with the more socially acceptable reason of a Christian education, whether or not they actually believed in those values (hence the quotes). Nothing in the source casts doubts on those schools’ religious education offerings or motives.

Ukvilly (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ukvilly -- We can be bold and edit the lede, if we so choose. I did. I made the last major revision of the lede [8]. I'm happy with it the way it is. It is specific. It is time-bound. The criteria is clear. They are answered by action, quotes, and court papers. Make the definition more broad-ranging and, you are right, more fights will come. I think we are pretty much in agreement about this. Yea. Rhadow (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)