Jump to content

Talk:Racial integration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terribly US-centric

[edit]

This article reads like it was written only with the US in mind. What about integration in Africa, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand....??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The following paragraph should not be included in the article.

Making a similar distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of one's actions, Jennifer Lightweis writes, "Clemson desegregated, but it never integrated. Integration implies an effort toward equality and proportional representation. Clemson is a land-grant college in a state [South Carolina - ed.] where 41 percent of graduating high school seniors are African-American. Yet in the past 10 years, Clemson's African-American enrollment has dipped from a peak of 8 percent to a shameful 7.1 percent"

This quote paragraph attacks the dignity of an honorable institution of higher learning. The statistical evidence is extremely deceptive. While 41% of the seniors graduating from high school in South Carolina are African American, a significantly lower percentage of students are African American in the top half, quarter, and tenth of graduating classes in South Carolina. Similarly, African Americans had significantly lower SAT scores. In 2004, over 55% over blacks fell in the lowest quartile nationally compared to less than 20% of whites. Less than 15% of blacks were in the upper two quartiles compared to over 50% of (whiteshttp://ed.sc.gov/topics/assessment/scores/sat/2004/REPORT_2004.pdf). Admission to Clemson University is based on academic performance, not race.

What's with this article?

[edit]

The article says almost nothing about racial integration; the bulk of its text is just trying to draw some sort of distinction between integration and desegregation. Shouldn't, well, talk about integration more? --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wtf

[edit]

Any problem w/ the first picture of the racial integration page being of a white with his black servant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.79.176 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to agree. Unless we have census record or something saying that the white fellow wasn't the employer of the black fellow, it's logical to assume it was just a well respected servant. There must be other good pictures in Commons. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MY WILL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.236.1 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Terrible

[edit]

What's up with this article? This only focuses on the United States. And since when does the term "race" rather than ethnicity cover a worldwide view of the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.13 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed

[edit]

This article should be renamed, "Racial integration in the United States." A separate article should be created that deals specifically with integration. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Racial integration. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]