"Redlining" forced black Berkeley residents like Kamala's family to live west of MLK Way.

[pnwmom]

This article shows the duplex she lived in while she was bused up into the hills to a wealthier white school. Her family lived in the top half of the building, and a preschool occupied the lower unit.

What many have forgotten is that, even in "liberal" cities like Berkeley, black residents were often prevented from renting or buying in white neighborhoods. That meant that even black families with money were prevented from living in white neighborhoods. But Harris, the daughter of grad students, and eventually of a single mother, didn't come from money.

https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/01/24/did-kamala-harris-berkeley-childhood-shape-the-presidential-hopeful?fbclid=IwAR3jsvrD678zO1xBKmgvm152e0Twn4CCjvOjBXMPUU2ss53gQ-_uW2bcpXo

Combing through old phone books and real estate records, Berkeley historian Steven Finacom deduced that Harris lived in the building that now houses Berkeley International Montessori School. Harris’ spokeswoman confirmed the location. When Harris lived there, beloved family friends Regina and Arthur Shelton ran a preschool out of the bottom unit. Her family had previously lived on Milvia Street as well.

Around that era, redlining forced black Berkeley residents to live west of what is now Martin Luther King Jr. Way, in the flatland neighborhoods like the area Harris grew up in. Finacom described Harris’ neighborhood at the time as “an integrated community with families of various races, both middle class and poorer residents, and both renters and homeowners.”

Harris lived in the Bancroft apartment with her mother Shyamala Gopalan Harris and her sister Maya, who later became a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Shyamala, who came to UC Berkeley from India in 1958 to get her Ph.D., met and married a fellow graduate student, Donald Harris, an immigrant from Jamaica. They separated when Harris was young.

[guillaumeb]

1. Oh but we are told that segregation is illegal.

And redlining was also illegal.

Amazing that these matters are still subject to debate.

[George II]

2. Harris grew up in Montreal - her mother moved there when she was 12 years old.

[RHMerriman]

3. "Redlining" restricted home ownership, and was in play in the 1940s and 1950s

[link:https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/09/20/redlining-the-history-of-berkeleys-segregated-neighborhoods|]

Berkeley’s very own Assemblyman, William Byron Rumford, introduced an anti-discrimination housing bill. It passed in June 1963. “Real estate interests ... launched a statewide initiative, Proposition 14, both to repeal the Rumford act and to prohibit any state legislation outlawing housing discrimination,” W.R. Rorabaugh wrote in Berkeley at War: The 1960s. The measure passed, but oddly in Berkeley, it was soundly defeated. The state Supreme Court nullified Proposition 14 in 1965.

So housing discrimination was outlawed by the state in June, 1963 (before the senator was born). It was challenged by ballot initiative in 1964, and the state Supreme Court nullified the ballot initiative - effectively supporting the Rumford Act.

So when did the Harris' try and buy a home so the as yet unborn senator could attend school in a "better" neighborhood, again?

Looks like they could have done so anytime between 1965 and 1968-69, when she would have started kindergarten.

What was preventing them from doing so?

Her father was full time faculty at University of Illinois from 1966, after all.

[pnwmom]

4. Wrong. The Fair Housing Act banned discrimination in sales and rentals of housing,

but it didn't stop redlining by banks with regard to lending.

And if you think rental owners suddenly stopped discriminating in 1968 you are hopelessly naive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

The Community Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods further required banks to apply the same lending criteria in all communities.[31] Although open redlining was made illegal in the 1970s through community reinvestment legislation, the practice may have continued in less overt ways.

[RHMerriman]

8. Rumford Act passed in California in 1963, and affirmed by the state Supreme Court in 1965.

The Rumford Act passed in California in 1963, and affirmed by the state Supreme Court in 1965. Look it up.

The senator was born in 1964. Presumably, she entered kindergarten in 1968-69.

The only thing keeping the senator's parents from renting or even buying in a nicer neighborhood for the schools was the divorce (her father, Dr. Donald Harris, was full-time faculty at the University of Illinois in 1966, the same year he earned his Phd. from Cal) and her mother's income while she attended Cal and finished her Phd.

If we knew when Dr. Shyamala G. Harris graduated from the UC and went to work, we'd actually know exactly when they were no longer poor.

Poverty sucks, so that's unfortunate her parents divorced, but it's not racism.

Try again.

[pnwmom]

10. Yes, they were affected by racism in their housing and school choices. And it's disheartening to me

that a Democrat would be so stubbornly blind to that.

[RHMerriman]

12. How, exactly?

Yeah, damn near tragic ... two PHd parents, both employed full-time, (at least) one of them in academic (University of Illinois in 1966, same year he graduated from Cal) before Senator Harris event went to kindergarten.

However did she rise above such humble beginnings?

[pnwmom]

14. Her mother was single by the time Kamala was in school, and still in grad school,

and unable to afford a place to live in the hills, where the schools were good. Even when she was still married they still wouldn't have been able to live near a good school, because grad students barely get by. And both of them were immigrants who didn't come from money.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[RHMerriman]

16. Her father was full-time faculty at Illinois in 1966, same year he graduated from Cal...

Her father - Dr. Donald Harris, Phd, Cal, 1966 - was full-time faculty at Illinois in 1966, same year he graduated from Cal... which is at least two years before the senator would have begun kindergarten.

See:

[link:https://web.stanford.edu/~dharris/professional_career.htm|]

4. Academic Appointments

1998- Emeritus Professor of Economics, Stanford University

1972-98 Professor of Economics, Stanford University.

1986-87 Director, Consortium Graduate School of Social Sciences (UWI, Jamaica)

1968-72 Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin (Madison).

1967-68 Assistant Professor, Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.)

1966-67 Assistant Professor, University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, Ill.)

If we knew when her mother - Dr. Shyamala G. Harris, Phd, Cal - graduated, presumably we'd know when the family stopped being "poor" ... if they ever were, really.

Divorce sucks. True. But that's not racism.

[pnwmom]

22. When my husband was on the faculty of a comparable public university 13 years LATER

his initial assistant prof salary was $18K per year. And social scientists, like Kamala's father, made even less. And Dr. Harris would have, at the most, been sending some kind of child support to Kamala's mother. You are dreaming if you think she could have gotten a nice place in the Berkeley hills in 1968 with her grad student income and a child support payment from an assistant or associate professor at one of those universities.

[RHMerriman]

36. Apparently the Harrises were still married until 1970-71, at which point

Apparently the Harrises were still married until 1970-71 (see link below), at which point the senator was seven years old - so, at least a couple of years after she started grade school.

[link:http://mentalfloss.com/article/90839/13-trailblazing-facts-about-kamala-harris|]

At the same time, her father - Dr. Donald Harris - was already tenured at the University of Wisconsin, at least according to Stanford, which presumably should know.

[link:https://web.stanford.edu/~dharris/professional_career.htm|]

4. Academic Appointments
1998- Emeritus Professor of Economics, Stanford University
1972-98 Professor of Economics, Stanford University.
1986-87 Director, Consortium Graduate School of Social Sciences (UWI, Jamaica)
1968-72 Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin (Madison).
1967-68 Assistant Professor, Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.)
1966-67 Assistant Professor, University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, Ill.)

He'd also already been a fellow at Cambridge and had a Ford Foundation fellowship at Delhi:

Faculty Fellow, Economics, Cambridge University, England, 1966
Ford Foundation Visiting Fellow, Delhi School of Economics, India, 1968
Associate Fellow, Clare Hall, Cambridge University, England, 1969, 1971

So presumably he wasn't a starving post-doc.

According to this, her mother, Dr. Shyamala Gopalan, had graduated from the University of California with her Phd in 1963 (1938+25 = 1963), which means her mother was not a starving grad student, but had a Phd. and apparently was employed full-time at the University of California as a researcher while her father finished his Phd..

[link:https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/kamala-harris-mom-shyamala-gopalan/|]

So presumably Dr. Gopalan wasn't a starving post-doc, either.

So I could scare this up with a couple of web searches; presumably any GOP oppo researcher with more resources than an individual surfing the web from home is going to have it down to the last paycheck when and where the senator's parents were making a living...

Which suggests, again, that however much divorce sucks, whatever it as that led Dr. Gopalan to raise her daughters where she did, it was not racism.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the senator grew up in privilege. Ruby Bridges she was not.

[pnwmom]

42. So what? Social science assistant/associate professors WITH FELLOWSHIPS

are paid more in fancy titles than they are in actual salaries. And he wasn't living with them, so he was sending them some kind of child support payment. The fact that they didn't officially divorce for a while means nothing.

And where did you get the idea that she got her PHD in 1963? The average college graduate, assuming nothing slows them down, finishes at age 22. That would be 1960, if you are correct about her being born in 1938. And then the average PhD takes 8 years. (And she had 2 babies during her her college/grad school years).

How many PhD's do you think get their degrees in 3 years? Almost NONE.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/12-reasons-not-to-get-a-phd/

1. A PhD takes twice as long as a bachelor's degree to complete. The average student takes 8.2 years to slog through a PhD program and is 33 years old before earning that top diploma. By that age, most Americans with mere bachelor's degree are well into establishing themselves professionally.

[RHMerriman]

43. According to the source linked here:

According to the source linked here:

[link:https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/kamala-harris-mom-shyamala-gopalan/|]

Dr. Gopalan earned her Phd. at Cal when she was 25; 1938 + 25 = 1963.

Shyamala Gopalan was born in Chennai, India April 7, 1938. She graduated from the University of Delhi at age 19 and became a doctor of philosophy in nutrition and endocrinology from the University of California, Berkeley at age 25. While she was attending Berkeley, she became involved in the Civil Rights Movement and met her husband, Donald Harris.
Shyamala Gopalan and Donald Harris had two children, Kamala and Maya. The couple separated when Kamala Harris was seven and later divorced.
Gopalan stayed with UC Berkeley for her career, working in the Cancer Research Lab in Berkeley’s Department of Zoology. She later worked as a breast cancer researcher for the University of Illinois and the University of Wisconsin. She later served on the President’s Special Commission on Breast cancer.

Senator Harris was born in 1964. She was, presumably, 5 years old when she went to kindergarten, so that's 1969-70. That means that both a) Dr. Gopalan was a Phd. working full time; and b) still married to Dr. Harris, who was fully-tenured at U. of Wisconsin in 1968.

Undoubtedly, even if they were estranged if not divorced (when the senator was seven, so that's 1970-71) they could have provided all sorts of opportunities for their children - even in Madison.

So if all of the above is correct - and no one has provided anything to suggest it wasn't - Dr. Gopalan CHOSE to raise her daughters in Berkeley, and in the particular neighborhood in Berkeley they lived in … just as she chose to go to McGill later, in time for the senator to attend and graduate from high school in the wealthiest neighborhood in Montreal.

So whatever it was that led to those decisions, it was not racism, institutional or otherwise.

Sorry.

Cool story, tho...

[StarfishSaver]

18. You know much too little about this topic to try to lord over anyone about it, much less get snarky

Sometimes it's better to say less and read and learn more.

[tishaLA]

21. + 1000

[RHMerriman]

37. Apparently not...

The senator was the child of two Phds., one of whom apparently had graduated as such in 1963 - before the senator was even born (according to Heavy.com; maybe their wrong, but at least there's a date).

Her father graduated in 1966, and promptly went to work as full-time faculty at the University of Illinois. (Stanford ought to know.)

There's at least one source (again, heavy.com, but at least it's a source) that says the parents did not divorce until the senator was seven, which would suggest 1970-71; at which point her father was fully tenured at Wisconsin.

Starving grad students they were not.

Divorce sucks, but it would appear the senator's mother chose to raise her daughters in Berkeley, an at a time when she had MANY options as far as finding employment that - presumably - would have put her children in any one of many different neighborhoods. Including, as we know she eventually chose, the wealthiest neighborhood in Montreal.

Tragic...

[Blue_true]

35. You are glossing over how redlining worked and how hard it was to stop it.

In many northern cities and surburbs, redlining was going on into the early 90s. I can't say for sure, but California would still have had a big problem.

People that redlined found ANY reason to deny a loan. Both parents could have been tenured faculty at a top university, the recliners would have still found a way to deny the loan. Even when Black families were rich and did not need a Mortage, real estate companies would not show them listings in neighborhoods that were all White. The laws that were passed early on did not make banks and real estate companies pay (then mostly big companies sold real estate, now the industry is much more fractured). It was not until the late 80s and early 90s when governments started pulling state, county and city funds from banks that did nothing to stop redlining that things started to change in a big way.

On your last point about money. Yes now, it's all about money, but if you notice, rich Black people are living in exclusive neighborhoods now.

[RHMerriman]

41. Any evidence that either of the senator's parents - Dr. Goyalan or Dr. Harris - were unable to buy

Any evidence that either of the senator's parents - Dr. Goyalan or Dr. Harris - were unable to buy a home because of redlining?

Given that Dr. Goyalan apparently graduated from Cal in 1963 and was working for the university full time at the time he senator went to grade school in 1969-70, and Dr. Harris graduated from Cal in 1966 and was already tenured at Wisconsin by 1968, apparently any issues they had regarding the neighborhood where their children were being raised were the result of their own decisions, not racism, institutional or otherwise.

[ucrdem]

7. Bingo.

And pretending that part of Berkeley was some kind of ghetto is ridiculous. It's not Marin but it's not West Oakland either.

[RHMerriman]

9. It's sure as hell not Hunter's Point or Watts, either...

Sure as hell wasn't Hunter's Point or Watts, either...

Much less Little Rock in 1954.

[ucrdem]

11. Yes.

There are much worse parts of Berkeley, namely around Telegraph and Ashby, and this neighborhood is quiet and nice, maybe even nicer then, as the housing stock wasn't as old.

[RHMerriman]

13. Really impressive, that having two PHd parents, one of which we KNOW was employed

Really impressive, that having two PHd parents, one of which we KNOW was employed as full-time by the University of Illinois the same year he graduated from Cal (1966, two years before the Senator would have begun kindergarten), and yet she rose so far above her humble beginnings...

[ucrdem]

15. Yep.

I don't remember Barack Obama ever being less than fully candid about his background and he never, ever played it the way Harris did on Thursday. I don't think this is going to help her get anywhere she would ever want to go.

[RHMerriman]

17. Nope.

Nope.

It was just manipulative emotional bullshit.

[58Sunliner]

51. And it's not Richmond/San Pablo either, where I spent some time.

[Blue_true]

34. Redlining was taking place into the 1990s.

It is not practiced now as much, money determines more where people live now.

So when Harris was in her early school years, redlining was very much practiced and it caused extensive segregation in housing and schooling.

In the 90s, laws started being passed making redlining illegal, if real estate agents and banks were caught doing it, they faces large fines and removal of government contracts.

[Demsrule86]

5. Than how was she bused as a young child?

[pnwmom]

6. She was living in Berkeley UNTIL she was 12. That's where she was bused. n/t

[Demsrule86]

19. I see... doesn't really matter I guess...she won't get my support in a primary...general sure but

not in the primary after this.

[emmaverybo]

31. Her local school board voted unanimously to approve integrating schools and implemented the

busing program she used to access quality education.
She was bused under local, not federal,authority.

[IluvPitties]

20. Okay.

Why is this relevant in 2019?

[pnwmom]

23. Because many here have been trying to argue that Kamala's story of having to be bused

in order to go to a good school was false.

And they are wrong. Redlining in Berkeley forced black and minority families to live in certain restricted areas, and those areas had much poorer schools. Berkeley's desegregation plan, which she participated in, changed that.

[ucrdem]

24. No, no one argued that. nt

[pnwmom]

26. Lots of people argued that, including right here. n/t

[ucrdem]

27. Where exactly?

[pnwmom]

28. We're not supposed to call out people. Just read through the responses here. n/t

[ucrdem]

29. Outside your threads I don't see any such claims. nt

[pnwmom]

30. I'm talking about some of the responses to my threads. n/t

[ucrdem]

32. No one has denied that she was bused. The issue is whether it was federally mandated.

And the answer is, no it wasn't. Anything else is your own invention.

[IluvPitties]

25. I get that.

Still, busing in the 1970s is not a real issue today.

[StarfishSaver]

40. No. But whether the federal government should have a say in local civil rights enforcement is

And Biden will need to say whether he still believes it's inappropriate for the federal government to mandate that local governments comply with civil rights laws.

[R B Garr]

47. Actually, it also looks like Kamala will need to answer why

she clouded the issues. Biden already answered.

The reality is that talking about busing does absolutely nothing for voters today. I agree with her predecessor, Barbara Boxer, who noted that she contradicted herself during the debate with her line about a food fight not helping Americans, then bringing up a forty year old issue. It’s a ridiculous thing to argue about on a national stage when an actual racist is in the White House.

[emmaverybo]

33. Her story implied that she was bused under federally mandated law, which Biden had opposed.

He did not oppose local,or state authority implementing busing programs to integrate schools and
provide equal education.
She posited herself as an example of a program he was opposed to.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Some of Biden's anti-busing legislation didn't affect only court-ordered busing

It also impacted voluntary busing.

[R B Garr]

48. Apparently it didn't, according to Kamala's own example. nt

[RHMerriman]

39. The senator also has glossed over the reality she lived a privileged life

The senator also has glossed over the reality she lived a privileged life, and that her parents made conscious choices - most obviously, when Dr. Gopalan chose to work at the University of California even after apparently graduating with her Phd. in 1963, and while apparently still being married to Dr. Harris, who graduated with his Phd. in 1966 and was tenured faculty at Wisconsin by 1968 - that had nothing to do with racism, institutional or otherwise, and everything to do with their own free will.

So, basically, the entire gambit is emotionally manipulative bullshit.

That is, if the facts sourced below are correct. If not, feel free to correct them with actual sourcing.

If they are correct, Harris is the worst kind of politician. Blue Falcon, indeed.

=================================================================

Apparently the Harrises were still married until 1970-71 (see link below), at which point the senator was seven years old - so, at least a couple of years after she started grade school.

[link:http://mentalfloss.com/article/90839/13-trailblazing-facts-about-kamala-harris|]

At the same time, her father - Dr. Donald Harris - was already tenured at the University of Wisconsin, at least according to Stanford, which presumably should know.

[link:https://web.stanford.edu/~dharris/professional_career.htm|]

4. Academic Appointments
1998- Emeritus Professor of Economics, Stanford University
1972-98 Professor of Economics, Stanford University.
1986-87 Director, Consortium Graduate School of Social Sciences (UWI, Jamaica)
1968-72 Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin (Madison).
1967-68 Assistant Professor, Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.)
1966-67 Assistant Professor, University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, Ill.)


He'd also already been a fellow at Cambridge and had a Ford Foundation fellowship at Delhi:

Faculty Fellow, Economics, Cambridge University, England, 1966
Ford Foundation Visiting Fellow, Delhi School of Economics, India, 1968
Associate Fellow, Clare Hall, Cambridge University, England, 1969, 1971


So presumably he wasn't a starving post-doc.

According to this, her mother, Dr. Shyamala Gopalan, had graduated from the University of California with her Phd in 1963 (1938+25 = 1963), which means her mother was not a starving grad student, but had a Phd. and apparently was employed full-time at the University of California as a researcher while her father finished his Phd..

[link:https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/kamala-harris-mom-shyamala-gopalan/|]

So presumably Dr. Gopalan wasn't a starving post-doc, either.

So I could scare this up with a couple of web searches; presumably any GOP oppo researcher with more resources than an individual surfing the web from home is going to have it down to the last paycheck when and where the senator's parents were making a living...

Which suggests, again, that however much divorce sucks, whatever it as that led Dr. Gopalan to raise her daughters where she did, it was not racism.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but the senator grew up in privilege. Ruby Bridges she was not.

[hedda_foil]

44. Nobody implied that. Biden's are gunner was local desegregation was ok with him.

She believes that it should have been federal because most towns aren't liberal Berkeley, which was as redlined as anyplace.

[emmaverybo]

45. I don't question her reasons for supporting federally mandated busing, but she

misrepresented herself as having personally benefitted from it when, in fact, she didn’t. She benefitted from her local school board’s decision to integrate Berkley schools.
Maybe she should have used the story of another little girl, though she wouldn’t have been the
star in it.

[StarfishSaver]

49. She never claimed she benefitted from court-orderd busing

She said she benefitted from busing and said Biden opposed busing.

Biden then tried to differentiate between "voluntary" and "court-ordered" busing and claimed he opposed the latter but supported the former. That's not true.

He opposed both court-ordered and voluntary busing and court-ordered busing and, in fact, introduced legislation that would have defunded and otherwise undermined the kind of voluntary program Harris participated in. His amendment didn't just target voluntary busing - it targeted only voluntary busing and didn't affect court-ordered busing at all, as Biden explained at the time.

Biden's amendment passed the Senate - with the help of Eastland and other segregationists - but fortunately, the House stripped Biden's anti-busing measure out of the final bill.

[emmaverybo]

53. She implied it. Otherwise, why use herself as an example to personalize an attack on his vote

against federally mandated busing? In the context of her challenging that vote, she implied she benefitted from federally, not locally, mandated school integration via busing.

Biden did not oppose local or state mandated programs; in fact, he suggested using local and state authority was the way to integrate.

To be transparent, she simply should have used another woman as “that little girl,” one who
rose to be a success because the federal mandate gave her access to a better quality, integrated
educational experience.

I am not arguing her opposition to Biden’s vote. I argue against the tactics she used, not debating
Biden’s position. It had to be debated and will continue to be.

[StarfishSaver]

54. It's exactly what I said

He didn't only oppose court-ordered busing, as he says now, but his anti-busing legislation targeted exactly the kinds of voluntary program that Harris participated in. And had the House not killed it, Biden's legislation would have defunded and possibly made impossible the Berkeley program that benefitted Harris.

You can keep repeating the "he only opposed court-ordered busing, not voluntary busing" lie you've been told, but that won't change the history or make it true.

And as I said, court-ordered desegregation and busing occurred ONLY after the local governments REFUSED to implement desegregation on a voluntary basis.

I'm curious what people think the federal courts and governments were supposed to do when local governments defied the law and refused to desegregate their schools. Do you think the federal courts were supposed to not step in? Were they supposed to just let the local school boards maintain segregated schools? Were they not supposed to enforce the Constitution and civil rights law because the local government didn't want to obey it?

[emmaverybo]

55. No. Berkley school board would have done it. I am not talking about any other locality or state.

And it is fine when this issue comes up again for Harris or anyone else to tear apart Biden’s argument about local and state authority.

But she misrepresented herself as having personally benefitted from the federally mandated program. She benefitted from the Berkley school board's authority.

[StarfishSaver]

56. Do you know what Biden' amendment said and what it would have done?

It would have prohibited a school from using federal funds to assign teachers or students to schools based on race, which would have undermined and possibly gutted Berkeley's and other communities' voluntary businf programs.

Harris NEVER said or even suggested she benefitted from a federally-ordered busing program. It was Biden who tried to claim that her program wasn't the kind of program he opposed, but that isn't true.

In fact, Politifact found Biden's claim that "I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education" to be Mostly False.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jun/28/joe-biden/joe-biden-oversimplifies-his-record-school-busing-/

[emmaverybo]

57. I am not arguing his anti-busing support. She misrepresented herself. Period. NT

[StarfishSaver]

58. You can keep saying that until your batteries run out

But that won't make your repeatedly disproved claim about her true. Period.

[treestar]

60. Could that amendment have included compromises?

So something else could go through? That kind of thing happened then. And it has been used against other candidates in the past, when they voted for some bill that had some compromise in it then used to claim the candidate is other than what they claim.

In fact, here it is only used to attempt to prove Biden was "lying." But that's an interpretation. He remembers he was OK with voluntary, and these small details of compromising amendments don't make him a "liar."

Let's not accuse people we might have to support next year as liars. It is not needed to get that far. Just tell us why Harris should be President and argue how she can get the swing states and beat Drupmf. Why is that too hard? Attacking the other candidates shows weakness, then diving down to attacking them as liars gets worse, attacking the supporters is even worse. We saw that in 2016 happen.

Drumpf is the liar. Drumpf's supporters are the ones who are wrong headed.

[StarfishSaver]

62. Biden's amendment didn't include any compromises. It was a straight up prohibition.

FYI, I haven't endorsed Harris or any other candidate, so there's no need for me to tell people why they should vote for or against anyone.

But I will, if I choose to, weigh in a topic and set the record straight when it appears to me that people are misstating the law or history in an area about which I am familiar.

[treestar]

59. I wonder why she didn't just leave that out and stick to

the Eastland part of the story.

Her being bussed was supposedly a positive thing, since that was de-segregating. And Biden has nothing to do with it, and certainly was not able to stop it. It was to call herself "that little girl" to make it more emotional.

[StarfishSaver]

61. Biden tried to stop the kinda of programs that Harris participated in

And if the House hadn't voted to strip his amendment out of the final bill, those voluntary programs would have ended.

The problem here is thar, instead of simply answering the question, Biden mischaracterized his record by claiming he never opposed something he did oppose (voluntary busing). And, as a result, Harris is being dragged all over DU for supposedly misstatibg his record, accusonf him of things she never accused him of, and mischaracterizing his record, none of which did.

In reality, Biden mishandled a question in a debate. It wasn't an unremediable error and it certainly wasn't a fatal one. But he does need to correct it by, among other things, honestly stating what his opinion was then and whether he has changed his mind since then. That's all he needs to do. The sooner he does it, the better.

But all of this "He never opposed voluntary busing even though he introduced legislation that was specifically targeted to voluntary busing and would have defunded it and probably made it impossible to carry out" and "I didn't think the federal government should force local communities to comply with civil rights law" defense and "how dare Kamala Harris challenge him" outrage is not a good look.

[treestar]

63. I don't expect Biden to recall things by the day

from 40 years or more ago. Or anyone, for that matter. There's still a possibility that he included the voluntary busing defunding to get something else passed.

[StarfishSaver]

64. Ok

Last edited Mon Jul 1, 2019, 08:58 AM - Edit history (2)

"He did regularly speak out against busing and he never publicly said he supported voluntary busing and he did call it an 'asinine policy,' a 'bankrupt concept,' and a 'liberal train wreck' and he did introduce and fight hard for legislation that would have destroyed the program Harris was in and just about every other voluntary program in the country, but Harris was still wrong and out of line to say he opposed busing in America and it was perfectly accurate for him to say he only opposed busing imposed by the Department of Education but supported voluntary busing because he may have done all that to try to get something else passed but he doesn't remember what that was and neither does anyone else"

Probably not be the best defense, but, if it's all you got, ok, let's go with that.

[R B Garr]

46. Has Kamala ever talked about being redlined?

The article says her parents were active in the civil rights movement during that time. Seems they would have been on to that and taken action. Her mother sued when a man was hired instead of her for a job she was after, so they seemed to be very aware of their rights.

[RandySF]

50. You can be part of a movement and still get fucked over.

[R B Garr]

52. It just seems there would be some history/awareness that they were redlined even

if they didn't prevail at that time.