Obama doesn’t defend innocent students if their name isn’t Mohamed
On the one hand, I think it’s good that Obama defended Ahmed Mohamed (the innocent clock making teen in Irving, Texas who was wrongly arrested) and invited him to the White House.
On the other hand, during Obama’s presidency there have been students who were not named Mohamed who got in trouble with the police for similar non-dangerous things, but were not defended by Obama or invited to the White House. In 2010 in Forest Hills, New York, a 12 year old girl named Alexa Gonzalez was arrested for writing “I love my friends Abby and Faith. Lex was here 2/1/10 ” on a classroom desk. In 2010 in Sanford, North Carolina, a 17 year old girl named Ashley Smithwick was charged with a misdemeanor for having a small paring knife in her lunchbox. In 2013 in Holmes County, Mississippi, a five year old boy was taken home from school in a police car for violating the school’s dress code. In 2011 in Fort Myers, Florida, police were summoned to an elementary school after a girl kissed a boy. But Obama never defended any of those students or invited them to the White House.
And those are just the ones where the police got involved. In cases where the police did not get involved, there have been dozens of reported incidents where students who were not named Mohamed got in trouble at school for things as ridiculous as pointing their finger like a gun, biting their pastry into the shape of a gun, threatening to shoot someone with a pink plastic toy gun that shoots bubbles, and dozens of other similar examples. But Obama never defended any of those students or invited them to the White House.
As another example of Obama’s hypocrisy on this issue, Mohamed’s parents said they will be transferring him to another school. But if Obama had his way, this kind of school choice would not exist.
In August 2013, the Obama administration sued Louisiana to try to bring an end to its school voucher program – a program which had just been passed in 2012. Under the Louisiana program, both of the following criteria had to be met in order for a student to get a school voucher. First, the student must come from a family whose income is below 250% of the poverty level. And second, the current public school that the student is attending must be rated as “C” or below. 86% of students who received vouchers had used those vouchers to flee from public schools which had been rated as “D” or “F.” Only the most vulnerable children were eligible for the vouchers – the poorest students attending the worst schools.
Obama’s reason for filing the lawsuit was that “many of those vouchers impeded the desegregation process.”
However, in response to Obama’s claim that the vouchers discriminated against blacks, Louisiana Education Superintendent John White pointed out that almost all of the students using the vouchers were black, and said that “it’s a little ridiculous” for Obama to claim that these vouchers caused discrimination against blacks. The Washington Post reported that 90% of the students who receive the vouchers are black.
It’s also worth noting that only students whose parents request such vouchers are eligible to participate in the voucher program. Obama is therefore claiming that parents want their own children to be discriminated against. Obama is extremely wrong on this. These parents do not want their children to be discriminated against. In reality, what these parents want is for their children to have a chance at a better education.
Obama’s opposition to school choice also makes him a hypocrite in another way, because while he was living in both Chicago and Washington D.C., he always sent his own children to private schools. Does Obama really want us to believe that he subjected his own children to racial discrimination by sending them to private schools?
Here are some other things that I have written about Obama and the public schools which you may find interesting: