New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones was roasted Thursday for inadvertently making a case for school choice whereas apparently being unaware of one thing referred to as “open enrollment,” which is already advocated for and utilized by households.

“Why do ‘school choice’ advocates never advocate eliminating school district boundaries/funding schools by local property tax and allowing poor, Black students to attend white, wealthy schools in neighboring municipalities? They don’t really want choice, just privatization,” Hannah-Jones tweeted.

(Twitter)

Hannah-Jones, who received a Pulitzer Prize for commentary final 12 months for the controversial 1619 Project that aimed to “reframe the country’s history” by saying the nation’s legacy of slavery underpins each side of American life, was mocked for her stance. 

“Good grief, you are so ignorant. This is EXACTLY what school choice advocates support,” Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen commented

“That’s literally the entire point of the school choice movement,” Grabien Media founder Tom Elliott wrote

BETSY DEVOS: LET’S LIBERATE KIDS FORM RACE INDOCTRINATION WITH SCHOOL CHOICE

“LOL, this is literally, 100% the argument that school choice advocates make. We want all parents and students to be able to move beyond the arbitrary boundaries that leftists set to keep people segregated by economic status,” journalist J.D. Rucker responded. “Thank you for supporting school choice.”

Attorney Harmeet Okay. Dhillon responded, “This is literally what school choice is about.”

New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones was roasted Thursday for declaring school choice advocates don’t push for open enrollment. (Photo by Brent N. Clarke/FilmMagic)

New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones was roasted Thursday for declaring school choice advocates don’t push for open enrollment. (Photo by Brent N. Clarke/FilmMagic)

“Where have you been? That’s why the school choice movement was started,” journalist Beth Baumann added.

“The whole point of school choice is so your zip code doesn’t determine your destiny,” columnist Amanda Carpenter wrote. “The whole point is to get beyond these arbitrary boundaries.” 

“The portability of school choice, and the benefits of that specifically for black kids in poor neighborhoods, has been a major part of arguments in its favor for decades,” National Review senior author Dan McLaughlin responded

McLaughlin added, “Now, it certainly is true that the *failure* of Republicans to deliver more school choice plans is partly due to white parents in wealthy neighborhoods who will vote for nominally pro-school-choice politicians, but do nothing about it. But that’s a failure of too little choice.”

Hannah-Jones shortly fired again. 

1619 PROJECT’S NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES PAID BY OREGON EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WITH FUNDS DIVERTED FROM NEEDY KIDS

“Nope. Not talking about portability. I am, as is clear from what I WROTE, asking where you all are advocating for the elimination of municipal school boundaries and the end of funding schools by local property tax,” she wrote. 

Education freedom advocates have lengthy backed this concept, referred to as “open enrollment,” which is only one mechanism of “school choice.” According to Andrew Campanella, president of National School Choice Week, greater than 30 states and the District of Columbia have one thing referred to as “intradistrict enrollment” the place college students are allowed to attend different conventional public colleges inside their government-assigned district. More than 40 states enable college students to attend conventional public colleges exterior their government-assigned district.

Betsy DeVos shares her 'Big Idea' on giving students school choiceVideo

Lauren Chen responded, asking if the New York Times scribe understood vouchers, however Hannah-Jones doubled down. 

“Um, vouchers do not work like that. One, they only work if the district or school accepts the child, which wealthy, white districts rarely do and many vouchers won’t pay tuition at the best private schools,” Hannah-Jones wrote. “Vouchers allow a handful of kids choice — all at the discretion of the receiver schools — while leaving the fundamental inequality perfectly intact and draining the budgets of the schools that serve the majority of kids.” 

Hannah-Jones bickered with lots of her critics, together with a Reason.com editor who mentioned she “inadvertently made the case for school choice.”

Hannah-Jones didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark. 

Many others mocked the New York Times Magazine reporter: