So damn amusing, however, when the President issued his compliment at Sen Obama, the black establishment said it was condescending. This of course isn’t condescension, just good business, right? Unbelievable

Islamsnotforme on February 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm

“It’s interesting to contrast the type of Black student that is marketed to White people by this elite (and, apparently, elitist) school, and the type of Black student that is marketed to White people.”
I assume that you meant for one of those “White people”s to be a “Black people”. On that assumption, I still don’t understand your point at all.
What on earth is wrong with the ad? It shows a famous African American alum of the school who happens to be a basketball player. Did you read the text alongside? It didn’t say “come here to play basketball”, it said come here and take advantage of the academic opportunities. It said that this alum took Advanced Placement History. It also encouraged students to join the math club.
The picture in the newsletter didn’t really project much of anything to me except that there are black and white students at the school and they wear uniforms.
Kids, both black and white, treat professional basketball players as heroes. The ad was targeted at them. The newsletter is sent to parents giving money to the school. Maybe that particular one didn’t mention basketball, but if they have a good team and they win I’m sure they wouldn’t try to hide it from the potential donors.
You’re just being hyper-politically correct, searching for hypocrisy where there is none, and somehow trying to tie this to liberalism. Weak.

FunkinWagnall on February 9, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Hypocrisy + Duplicitousness = LIBERALISM

Thee_Bruno on February 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

@funkinwagnall
i agree
@debbie
if you’re seriously trying to purport that liberals are racist and conservatives are not, you have a looooong road ahead of you. good luck with that.
for the record, here’s an example of a completely unverified claim:
“You’s never see this low advertising double standard from conservatives or a conservative private school.”
and while you’re scrambling to somehow prove that one, here’s an example of the secundum quid fallacy:
“So why do liberals and liberal schools–which constantly decry racism, but apparently don’t practice what they preach–get away with it?”
seriously… it’s time to start teaching basic logic in our public schools. if we did, we’d have a lot fewer demagogues like debbie schlussel running around.

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

@thee_bruno
ad hominem tu quoque = hypocrisy

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 2:49 pm

ready5, I’m going to ignore your inane bullshit from now on.
You’re a muzlum stalker who engages in lies and propaganda.
Every one of your posts is nothing but a lie designed to have people post off-topic.
Keep your head buried up the ass of the guy in front of you at the mosque as you get on all fours to pray to your false god…that’s all you’re good for.
LMFAO!

Thee_Bruno on February 9, 2007 at 3:06 pm

The Whiteboy ad deserves the Oscar;if I did the
brotha ad,I’d have the dean standin’ on the conah
uh Thirteen an’ Lahser wit’ a 40-ounce a Colt 45.

jaywilton on February 9, 2007 at 3:08 pm

This will probably be the topic on “Hannity and Colmes” tonight on Fox News.
Brilliant columnist Pawn Hannity travelled to Detroit Country Day School to see if there are double standards recruiting black students to the school.
Be a man, Pawn Hannity!

Jeff_W on February 9, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Thanks for fixing the typo, Debbie. But I still need someone to explain what is condescending about this ad. Is anybody here willing to claim that they are sincerely offended by this ad?
If it’s not offensive, then what are we talking about here? I feel like you’ve been repeating this mantra of “liberals are hypocrites” for so long, that you feel you can convince your readers with just about anything. They just grin and nod and say “those liberal hypocrites are at it again.”
I’m so sick of this garbage of calling everyone you disagree with a “coward” or a “hypocrite”. It’s effective because they are very damaging claims that are difficult to defend against, but I’m starting to wonder if the name-callers even know what the words mean.

FunkinWagnall on February 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm

@thee_bruno
“ready5, I’m going to ignore your inane bullshit from now on.”
– you’re doing a mighty poor job of ignoring me, but… if i’m wrong, please call me on it… just back up your contention with facts, please.
“You’re a muzlum stalker who engages in lies and propaganda.”
– i’m not a muslim and not a stalker… if i’d lied anywhere on this site, please bring it to my attention.
“Every one of your posts is nothing but a lie designed to have people post off-topic.”
– false. i respond to factual errors in the posts of others.
“Keep your head buried up the ass of the guy in front of you at the mosque as you get on all fours to pray to your false god…that’s all you’re good for.”
– um… again, i’m not a muslim. and i hope you’re aware that jews, christians, and muslims all pray to the same god (whether you call him yhwh/yahweh/jehovah, adonai, el, elohim, shaddai, or allah).

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 3:26 pm

You all fail basic theology. The Moon God of Arabia is a god of Muslim imagination. He is a real “god” in the sense that they actually believe in “him”. Not really a false god.
“ready5” is way off base with his theologically liberal statement:
“i hope you’re aware that jews, christians, and muslims all pray to the same god (whether you call him yhwh/yahweh/jehovah, adonai, el, elohim, shaddai, or allah)”
If you are a tri-thiest, like me (Elohim is plural), no Muslim (or most Jews and professing Christians) would say we pray to the same God.
Dr.Dale

Dr.Dale on February 9, 2007 at 6:10 pm

@dr.dale
for the record, theology is the rational consideration of religion/spirituality as a whole, not the denigration of one faith’s god as a “moon god” or a figment of “imagination”, etc. my statement is hardly theologically liberal… i really don’t know how much more mainstream it could be.
if you’re a tritheist, good for you, but you need to realize that you’re rather squarely in the minority of christian thought. thus, it’s still valid to make the generalization to say that all the abrahamic faiths revere the same god… just in their own unique way.
also, when referring to the israelite god, ‘elohim’ is decidedly not plural… despite its -im suffix, it behaves as a singular noun in every way (e.g. takes a singular verb, etc). however, it does have the sense of ‘godhead’, which provides a basis for the notion of a triune god. also note that ‘allah’ and ‘elohim’ are linguistic cognates (via ‘eloah’).

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 7:27 pm

There’s nothing racist or bigoted about the ad. It just so happens that one of Country Day’s African-American alumni is NBA player, Shane Battier, period. Battier even mentions drama and the math league in the ad!
-Dr. Dale, you too fail basic theology. First, both Christians and Muslims profess to believe in the same God of the Jews (you read or heard the Iman’s prayer right?). They may differ on interpretation, but it’s the same God. And both Yahweh and Allah are descendants of the Sumerian Moon God, Nanna.
-Thee_Buffoon, you’re just a complete moron as usual.

Norman Blitzer on February 9, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Norman Blitzer, you are just plain wrong and maybe you should check out your theology.
Ever heard of Jesus? Christians and Jews greatly differ, though I respect Jews and Judaism.
Again, you have no proof that Yahweh descended from Nanna. Allah, yes, Yahweh, no.
“There’s nothing racist or bigoted about the ad.”
Seeing your half truths stated about Christianity I’m not surprised you totally and probably willfully miss the point Debbie made.
It’s not that the ad in itself is racist. As she said, the ad specifically targeted to black people sends one message while the message to white people sends an entirely different message. It’s easy to comprehend, unless you are just willingly being argumentative, which I think.

The_Man on February 9, 2007 at 8:55 pm

@norman blitzer
while yhwh may have been derived from nanna/sin/suen, it’s important to note that there are other well-documented theories, such as yhwh being a composite of an akkadian water deity (ea/ia/i in babylon, enki in sumeria)… or of the pre-chons/thoth egyptian deity yah (‘iah’ is egyptian for moon)… or of the canaanite deity ‘hadad’ (haddu in ugartic, adad in akkadian)… or of the ugaritic god yam/ya’a/yaw/yahu, who was a son of el the supreme levantine god… although neither he nor his mesopotamian cognate ‘an/anu’ fit the attributes of the hebrew ‘el’.
however, it’s important to remember that since the tetragammon was ineffable, a ‘euphemism treadmill’ was bound to happen. thus, the use of different names for god in the bible does not necessarily mean that the hebrews did in fact worship different gods at different times. all the linguistic slop has made it difficult to sort whether the semite god(s) was/were narrowed from levantine or mesopotamian pantheons, which suggests that those pantheons were derived from an earlier common source.

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 9:07 pm

@the_man
“Ever heard of Jesus? Christians and Jews greatly differ, though I respect Jews and Judaism.”
– i’m not sure how the mentioning of jesus is relevant to norman blitzer’s comments about the “god of the jews”. further, you should note that muslims consider jesus to be a prophet, while jews do not.
“Again, you have no proof that Yahweh descended from Nanna. Allah, yes, Yahweh, no.”
– sorry to say, but if allah was derivative of nanna, then yahweh has to be, too… considering that the god of islam IS the god christianity and the god of judaism. you are aware that the koran incorporates most of the old and some of the new testament, right? islam is directly modeled on judeo-christianity.
as far as proof goes, that’s a slippery slope… since there is no definitive proof one way or another about the non-empirical, we’re left with plausibility arguments. what’s plausible to an atheist, a jew, a christian, and a muslim will differ… but none of the above can lay an exclusive claim to any sort of objective ‘proof’.
“the ad specifically targeted to black people sends one message while the message to white people sends an entirely different message.”
– yes, but is that difference racist? or was debbie blowing it out of proportion, claiming it was racist, and then using that to fallaciously argue that all liberals are racist while all conservatives are not? further, most advertising creatives are drawn up by ad agencies… might want to see if maybe it was a black ad agency that created that ad for a black magazine.

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 9:14 pm

” i’m not sure how the mentioning of jesus is relevant to norman blitzer’s comments about the “god of the jews”. ”
Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God. Plus, in the next statement “…while jews do not.” answers your own question.
“further, you should note that muslims consider jesus to be a prophet, while jews do not.”
So? I’m not a Muslim, I’m a Christian.
” sorry to say, but if allah was derivative of nanna, then yahweh has to be, too…”
Not true, I don’t see why both are bound together. Muslim and Christianity are not the same. Why do you think Muslims hate Christians? We have different beliefs.
“since there is no definitive proof one way or another about the non-empirical, we’re left with plausibility arguments. what’s plausible to an atheist, a jew, a christian, and a muslim will differ… but none of the above can lay an exclusive claim to any sort of objective ‘proof’.”
I think we agree pretty much there. I do believe the facts lie with Christianity, but I respect anyone who believes or not.
“but none of the above can lay an exclusive claim to any sort of objective ‘proof’.”
Do atheists have to act in faith, then? Sorry, just couldn’t resist.
“or was debbie blowing it out of proportion, claiming it was racist, and then using that to fallaciously argue that all liberals are racist while all conservatives are not?”
Debbie can certainly speak for herself (and Sean Vannity can lift it). I think she has a valid point that conservatives are regularly slammed for things like this while liberals who control the media aren’t.

The_Man on February 10, 2007 at 1:30 am

@the_man
– um… the point here is that you’re talking about jesus while we’re talking about god. may i congratulate you on your excellent points against a position none of us hold.
– my point was that in many ways, islam is closer to christianity than judaism is.
– allah was derived from yahweh, so if allah was derived from nanna, yahweh must be to. it’s a simple transitive relation. also, your average muslim and your average christian do not hate each other.
– i respect your belief that christianity is factual… but that would be a tough proof to claim. the supernatural is (by definition) non-empirical, so all you’ve got is a highly contested journey through metaphysics.
– yes, atheists also have to act in faith. epistemologically, there is no difference between a thesist and an atheist and i defy anyone to prove otherwise. but this is not to say that agnoticism is any answer… skepticism is always the coward’s way out. for you theisist and atheists, i applaud your convictions and beliefs… but if you attempt to convert them into truth claims, they will be incredibly easy to disprove.
– liberals are often guilty of self-righteousness… but not all. conservatives are often guilty of similar hypocrisy… but not all. debbie’s example was a rather poor one, especially as any sort of “proof” for her sweeping claims. regardless, she’s entitled to her opinion, just as i am to mine… such as: the era of the so-called “liberal media” is over. ever watch fox news? did you see the anti-atheist panel on cnn that debbie participated in? the media is looking fairly balanced (if not completely polarized) to me.

ready5 on February 10, 2007 at 6:12 am

Debbie said, “Basketball would never be the marketing tool to advertise this tony, expensive prep school to White people. The school would market academics and ivy league admittees to them.”
I’ve seen this ad a dozen times in other publications including HOUR Detroit and Metro Parent. How is the ad racist if appears in those types of publications as well as African American Family? Shane talks about getting involved in as many things as possible while in high school (math, drama, AP History)…isn’t that what we want our kids (whether they are black or white) to do?
Debbie also said, “Then, I happened upon the latest Country Day annual report–sent to the school’s mostly White, mostly liberal donors and parents–at the gym.”
Annual reports are sent to everyone. My brother and his wife send their kids there and they, along with everyone else, received one. They are not white, not liberal and are not rich, but they are including in the school’s communication. And that annual report picture? It talks about how the boys have been friends since PreK…which is great. Why are we trying to segregate the kids when they look at friends as friends, not for the color of their skin?
Debbie, you are entitled to your opinion, but check the facts before you make accusations…that ad has been around for at least this entire school year in several different publications. Shane is a hero to boys and girls, black, white, whatever…he is the perfect example of succeeding by working hard and obtaining an all-around education.
PUH-LEEZE. I CHECKED THE FACTS. YOU DID NOT. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. AND I WROTE, MYSELF, THAT THE ANNUAL REPORT GOES TO PARENTS OF KIDS AT THE SCHOOL. YOU APPARENTLY DID NOT READ THAT. AND IT’S ALWAYS ANNOYING WHEN PEOPLE WHO DON’T READ CLOSELY MAKE INCORRECT CORRECTIONS OF ME. AGAIN ON THE READING CLOSELY PART, WHEN DID I OBJECT TO THE PICTURE OF THE BLACK STUDENTS AND WHITE STUDENTS WHO’VE BEEN FRIENDS SINCE THE BEGINNING? WHO’S TRYING TO SEGREGATE THEM. I THINK THE PICTURES FINE, WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD THE CAPACITY TO READ WHAT I WROTE. THAT’S THE PIC THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILY, BUT WASN’T, B/C THE DCDS PEOPLE ARE RACIST AND THINK THAT ONLY A BLACK PLAYING BASKETBALL WILL APPEAL TO POTENTIAL BLACK STUDENTS. AGAIN, YOU DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE. YOU JUST SPOUTED OFF. TYPICAL.
AND, FYI, IF YOUR BROTHER AND HIS WIFE SEND THEIR KIDS, PLURAL, TO DCDS, THEY ARE, INDEED, RICH. HERE’S THE ANNUAL TUITION THERE (THEY GIVE VERY FEW SCHOLARSHIPS), WHICH DOESN’T INCLUDE BOOKS, ETC., WHICH ARE FAR MORE (http://www.dcds.edu/page.cfm?p=340):
Prekindergarten $15,080
Junior Kindergarten $16,560
Kindergarten $17,340
Grades 1 – 2 $17,340
Grades 3 – 4 $18,100
Grade 5 $19,100
Grades 6 – 8 $20,760
Grades 9 – 12 $21,950
NO-ONE READS THE SMALL PRINT IN ADS. ALL THEY SEE IS A BASKETBALL PLAYER. GET A CLUE OR SEVERAL.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

Soccergrl19 on February 10, 2007 at 8:12 am

The_Man,
This is what DS posted:
“And the ad is just plain insulting and bigoted.”
It was this point I was addressing. And since I didn’t find the ad racist or bigoted, means that I also didn’t find the marketing campaign racist either. Was this so hard for you to put together? FunkinWagnall’s and ready5 have similar comments, but I think they pretty much did a better job than me in expressing those viewpoints.
The_Man posted:
[Ever heard of Jesus? Christians and Jews greatly differ, though I respect Jews and Judaism.]
[Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God. Plus, in the next statement “…while jews do not.” answers your own question.]
You’ve missed the point entirely on this issue and are going off on a tangent. Jesus has nothing to do with it. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all claim to believe in the same God but with teachings that are sometimes different and sometimes similar.
And yes, there’s ample proof that the Biblical God’s origins can be found in Sumeria, if you’re willing to look. I’ll give you a starting point. Abraham, the first Jew, was born in Ur… .

Norman Blitzer on February 10, 2007 at 8:38 am

ready5,
“- i respect your belief that christianity is factual… but that would be a tough proof to claim. the supernatural is (by definition) non-empirical, so all you’ve got is a highly contested journey through metaphysics”
If you get down to it, everything is looking at the best evidence available and basing your belief on that. It’s not just the supernatural, it’s everything, for example the theory of evolution. I assume most atheists believe in the theory of evolution and you really can’t prove it 100%, either.
” um… the point here is that you’re talking about jesus while we’re talking about god.”
That’s the difference. Christians believe Jesus is God. We believe Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified and risen on the 3rd day. As Paul said, that is the defining mark of our faith and what sets Jesus apart.
There were witnesses and we believe the witnesses, who recorded these events in the New Testament.

The_Man on February 10, 2007 at 8:46 am

Norman B, “And yes, there’s ample proof that the Biblical God’s origins can be found in Sumeria, if you’re willing to look. I’ll give you a starting point. Abraham, the first Jew, was born in Ur…”
That’s proof only that Abraham was born in Ur. The Bible states that.
“Ample truth”? No, there’s not. You guys are relying on faith. Christians and Jews look at the evidence and come to different conclusions. You guys do the same.

The_Man on February 10, 2007 at 12:37 pm

ready 5-another muslim apoligist…..and wasting space. Why don’t you actually read something other than your koran. Find some time to read something other than the satanic koran after you get up off your knees 5x’s a day.
Blitzer-many rational people have tried to talk with you, and reason with you and they assume you are a normal person. It is hopeless. A poster above wondered if this is willful on your part, and after reading your bs today I have to believe it is so. I think you just like to argue. You enjoy it. You really need help as this situation we are in is not a joke. You may find it fun to argue with people but your lies and koran kissing are just BORING. I, for one, will pass on reading anything you post. A total muslim waste of time.

CarpeDiem on February 10, 2007 at 7:18 pm

CarpeDiem,
I like to argue as much as you like being a stupid bigot. I wasn’t the first or only poster to disagree with Debbie’s assessment of DCDS’s marketing campaign nor was I the first one in this topic to state that Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in the same God.
[You may find it fun to argue with people but your lies and koran kissing are just BORING. I, for one, will pass on reading anything you post.]
Then please do SHUT UP!

Norman Blitzer on February 11, 2007 at 7:42 am

@the_man
“If you get down to it, everything is looking at the best evidence available and basing your belief on that… I assume most atheists believe in the theory of evolution and you really can’t prove it 100%, either.”
– good points. all we poor humans have are our easily-fooled senses (e.g. optical illusions, magic shows) and our ability to reason (which still only gives us part of the picture). we are bound by our subjectivity, and there seems to little we can do from ourselves to get to objective truth… thus our hope for some sort of transcendence. so yes, epistemologicaly, all anyone ever believes in is still merely subjective.
if we look at different ‘modes of knowing’ (e.g. authority, experience, faith, etc), there become little difference between listening to a preacher speak from the bible and listening to a teacher speak from a textbook… which is why both theists and atheists decry the dogmatism in the other… my argument is that the need to be similarly honest about the dogmatism in themselves. does religion even need logic and reason? maybe not, and that’s my point: religion starts with unfalsifiable theses (hence the ‘flying spaghetti monster’ objection)… but that does not mean its wrong. science insists on falsifiable theses, but that does not mean its right… or even on the right track. if we’re going to use logic/reason as a benchmark, evolution is starts winning handily… but my argument is that logic/reason is false benchmark in the world of religion… try as we might, it still fails to acheive transcendence and can never address unfalsifiable claims. note: there are HUGE differences between “scientific theory” and “theory”… and “unfalsifiable” in no way means “true”… it just means that the claim is structured in such a way that it’s impossible to test (like me saying that god is a flying spaghetti monster).
“That’s the difference. Christians believe Jesus is God…”
– ok, good point here, too… i think i understand where our disconnect is. yes, there are many qualitative differences between the god of jews, the god of christians, and the god of muslims… particularly in mode of worship. a quick objection: but if we concentrate on qualitative differences, then we’re forced to say that lutherans, amish, and catholics all worship a different god… or that any two given southern baptists worship a different god, since each would do so a little differently. of course, my claim doesn’t work in the extreme either… all monotheistic faiths do not worship the same god just because they happen to believe that there is one supreme being.
here’s more what i meant: judaism, christianity, and islam are called ‘abrahamic’ or ‘religions of the book’ for good reason. they accept the bulk of each others’ prophets, precepts, and history… just with minor twists. that the christions diverge from the jews in the first century is no different than the protestants diverging from the catholics over a millenia later. that the muslims take the bulk of the bible and add some twists is no different than what the mormons did. now, i understand your point that if “christians believe jesus is god” that then jews (who do not believe in jesus) and muslims (who demote jesus to a mere prophet) must be praying to different god. first off, not all christians believe in the trinity (see dr. dale above)… further, the trinity is usually construed as jesus being a manifestation… which is a qualitative difference (see above). so if you start with an abosolute view of christianity, then sure… any thing that differs at all differs absolutely. but if you step back and look at history and features, its logical to view the ‘abrahamic’ grouping as a reasonable one.
“That’s proof only that Abraham was born in Ur. The Bible states that.”
– i agree.
“You guys are relying on faith. Christians and Jews look at the evidence and come to different conclusions. You guys do the same.”
– yes… and no. “yes” for all the reasons i stated above, and “no” for the fact that there are degrees of required faith and degrees of evidence quality. again, “christians and jews” shouldn’t try so hard to find “evidence” and play the empirical game since they’ll lose at that everytime… but just as harshly, atheists shouldn’t get haughty until they’ve similarly developed a complete worldview or can acheive any level of transcendence. of course, you don’t need transcendence if you’re a subjectivist… but that’s kind of a dismal life in my opinion. (for the record: i mean ‘transcendence’ in the philosophical sense.)

ready5 on February 11, 2007 at 1:03 pm

@carpediem
“ready 5-another muslim apoligist…..and wasting space. Why don’t you actually read something other than your koran. Find some time to read something other than the satanic koran after you get up off your knees 5x’s a day.”
– i’m not a muslim, i’ve read far more than just the koran, and the koran is not satanic. if the fact that i defend people from bigoted attacks and flawed logic makes me an ‘apologist’ of some sort, fine… but i suggest that you actually look up that word before you use it. if you want to be a “rational person” and engage in a factual discussion, i’d be happy to do it… but if all you want to do is issue insults and ad hominem attacks towards those who dare disagree with you, then personally i think it is you who is “wasting space”. here’s something for you to ponder: decrying the bigotry of some people while being a bigot yourself makes you a rather large hypocrite.

ready5 on February 11, 2007 at 1:09 pm

[“That’s proof only that Abraham was born in Ur. The Bible states that.”
– i agree.]
Just to clarify, I did not offer “Abraham born in Ur” as proof in of itself, but only as a starting point of research for those who wish to investigate the possibility that the Biblical God may have roots in Sumer/Mesopotamia/Babylon:
[“And yes, there’s ample proof that the Biblical God’s origins can be found in Sumeria, if you’re willing to look. I’ll give you a starting point. Abraham, the first Jew, was born in Ur… .”
Posted by: Norman Blitzer at February 10, 2007 08:38 AM]
I would suggest to anyone interested in the origins of the biblical God to research Ur and the stories that come from that area.

Norman Blitzer on February 11, 2007 at 2:10 pm

@norman blitzer
while there are many hurdles for literalist christians to surmount (conflicting genealogies for jesus, etc), i am confident in the theologically liberal christian’s ability to explain away such hurdles. yes, there extreme similarities between certain portions of the bible and earlier mesopotamian/levantine texts, but isn’t binding proof that the bible is derivative. and even if it was, i still am confident in the liberal christian’s ability to get around it. again (like i said before), there is no way to emperically test the basic starting points of christianity, so no amount of “ample proof” will ever disprove it… there is no way to falsify an unfalsifiable claim.
so once again, it all comes down to plausibility arguments… and the determination of what is more plausible is purely an individual affair. while some christians might find the mesopotamian/levantine connection (especially deluge myths) too much of a hurdle, others would be unfazed to the same degree that you are compelled.
oh, and to be extremely pedantic, the term ‘jew’ is most likely patronymic, so abraham was not “the first jew”, but rather a sixth-generation hebrew.

ready5 on February 11, 2007 at 8:49 pm

I don’t think the Shane Battier add was racist at all. It is intended to pique the interest of the targeted audience.

Shane Battier was (and still is) a basketball player. He is also one of the most recognizable Country Day alums for this very reason. The ad attempts to draw parallels between his experience and the experience(s) of those that may view the marketing piece. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Battier was also a very intelligent kid, mentioning that he worked very hard during his time at the school and earned all A’s and one B. (Mr. Corwin was one of my teachers during my time at the school as well)

The core of the advertisement is this: I played basketball at Country Day and become a better basketball player because of it, however, the overarching benefit of my going there was that I was challenged in every endeavor outside of basketball even more.

Black Male that attended DCDS (C/O '03) on May 18, 2011 at 11:31 am

you think the donors and parents are mostly liberal?? Have you actually ever been anywhere near the school or anyone attached to it? You are so far off, I’m thinking this was a joke? or a set-up?

Been here since '78 on May 23, 2014 at 1:43 pm