5-4: Resegregation Now!

[Nbadan]

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/img/archive/18_03/1803_53.gif
Conservative Court Rules Whites Entitled to better Education

Resegregation Now
Published: June 29, 2007



The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation’s schools to integrate. Yesterday, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.

Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation’s driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn’t always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.

Yesterday, the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the majority’s fifth vote, reined in the ruling somewhat by signing only part of the majority opinion and writing separately to underscore that some limited programs that take race into account are still acceptable. But it is unclear how much room his analysis will leave, in practice, for school districts to promote integration. His unwillingness to uphold Seattle’s and Louisville’s relatively modest plans is certainly a discouraging sign.

In an eloquent dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer explained just how sharp a break the decision is with history. The Supreme Court has often ordered schools to use race-conscious remedies, and it has unanimously held that deciding to make assignments based on race “to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society” is “within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities.”

Chief Justice Roberts, who assured the Senate at his confirmation hearings that he respected precedent, and Brown in particular, eagerly set these precedents aside. The right wing of the court also tossed aside two other principles they claim to hold dear. Their campaign for “federalism,” or scaling back federal power so states and localities have more authority, argued for upholding the Seattle and Louisville, Ky., programs. So did their supposed opposition to “judicial activism.” This decision is the height of activism: federal judges relying on the Constitution to tell elected local officials what to do.

The nation is getting more diverse, but by many measures public schools are becoming more segregated. More than one in six black children now attend schools that are 99 to 100 percent minority. This resegregation is likely to get appreciably worse as a result of the court’s ruling.

There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/opinion/29fri1.html?8dpc)

Roberts twisted the meaning of the words quoted from Brown vs BOE in the most dispicable way. From the article:

“We have one fundamental contention,” a lawyer for the schoolchildren, Robert L. Carter, had told the court more than a half-century ago. “No state has any authority under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.”

Chief Justice Roberts added yesterday, “There is no ambiguity in that statement.”

But the man who made that statement, now a 90-year-old senior federal judge in Manhattan, disputed the chief justice’s characterization in an interview yesterday.

“All that race was used for at that point in time was to deny equal opportunity to black people,” Judge Carter said of the 1950s. “It’s to stand that argument on its head to use race the way they use is now.”

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I haven't read the court opinion, or looked for it. Am I right to assume that this is a case that stops the bussing of students to create mixed schools?

If I am right, this isn't segregation, it's keeping preventing the PC crowd from forcing kids to be bussed to schools farther away from home.

[Gerryatrics]

I know in the case of the Seattle school district it was about a racial tiebreaker. In the event there were more people trying to join a school then could fit in the freshman class, which students were allowed in would be based on the student's race.

The "integration tiebreaker" is what Seattle's busing program morphed into when busing fell out of fashion.

[fyatuk]

That's just stupid. This is hardly re-segregation. They just decided that school boards using race as a determining factor on student enrollment violates the 14th amendment, which is does. Heck, from what I understand previous courts in the Seattle basically ruled that it was borderline at best constitutionally and they were allowing it to remain because the government had shown an interest in the achieving the end result the program was designed to do. That is idiotic.

So is this:
So did their supposed opposition to “judicial activism.” This decision is the height of activism: federal judges relying on the Constitution to tell elected local officials what to do.

I hate to tell you this, but this is Constitutionalism, not activism. Every elected and appointed official is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Also note that this is ONE OF THE MAIN DUTIES OF THE SUPREME COURT.

They should have stuck with talking about how it's a different course from the Supreme Courts of the past, as well as district and appellate course if they wanted to argue the activist route.

[xrayzebra]

Thank God we finally have a court that goes by the Constitution
instead of "feel good" and PC.

[George Gervin's Afro]

now we can keep the rich away from the poor. the blacks,whites,mexicans,asians away from eachother. conservatives have again started the social wheel going backwards. nice job guys.. so the end result would be for all 'the same color schools'..that should foster a truer sense of what society is all about.

[fyatuk]

now we can keep the rich away from the poor. the blacks,whites,mexicans,asians away from eachother. conservatives have again started the social wheel going backwards. nice job guys.. so the end result would be for all 'the same color schools'..that should foster a truer sense of what society is all about.

No, it means we won't force the issue and basically make students go to specific schools because of what race they are.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, it means we won't force the issue and basically make students go to specific schools because of what race they are.


I agree with you..then this will lead to all black,white,hispanic schools..that's a good thing right?

[Oh, Gee!!]

A short documentary about the public school system in Louisville, KY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY16_nKORb8&mode=related&search=

[FromWayDowntown]

No, it means we won't force the issue and basically make students go to specific schools because of what race they are.

There are no socio-economic implications to that conclusion, though, since most school attendance zones are deeply integrated and since it's clear that schools in historically poor areas are frequently blessed with funding equal to that enjoyed by schools in historically affluent areas.

[Mr. Peabody]

There are no socio-economic implications to that conclusion, though, since most school attendance zones are deeply integrated and since it's clear that schools in historically poor areas are frequently blessed with funding equal to that enjoyed by schools in historically affluent areas.

According to the Supreme Court, the "vestiges of segregation" have been eliminated.

[Yonivore]

I don't see how a court ruling striking down race-based school admissions policies can be construed as re-segregation.

Do enlighten me.

[fyatuk]

I agree with you..then this will lead to all black,white,hispanic schools..that's a good thing right?

That's human natures fault more than anything. If you offer a black family the exact same living quarters (or even slightly better) in a much nicer neighborhood with better schools, but nearly an all-white neighborhood, they most likely would rather stay in a crappy neighborhood.

It'd be better to redraw school district lines so the schools contain more diverse neighborhoods (to what extent is possible), than forcing the issue.

And here's another question: If the goal is to eliminate race from the minds of people, how in the world is making race a key criteria for anything going to accomplish that?

Any form of racial thinking is wrong and stupid. It's why I've always refused to claim minority status even though I legally can.

[fyatuk]

There are no socio-economic implications to that conclusion, though, since most school attendance zones are deeply integrated and since it's clear that schools in historically poor areas are frequently blessed with funding equal to that enjoyed by schools in historically affluent areas.

That's a whole different set of issues. It's wrong to make determinations as to who goes where based on race. If someone applies to transfer to an out of zone school, then all applicants should get equal consideration. Why should a poor white guy who applied to go to an out of zone school lose his bid to his next door neighbor because the neighbor is black?

The lack of intergration in the neighborhoods of the school attendence zones is a completely different matter that would certainly not be affected by this, and is a bigger concern.

The school funding issues have had many attempts at addressing by Robin Hood laws and even NCLB wanted to address it. Another completely separate issue.

[Wild Cobra]

I see this as another twisted story that distorts the truth into a lie. No wonder we have so many misinformed voters, and get a terrible government

[Mr. Peabody]

There are no socio-economic implications to that conclusion, though, since most school attendance zones are deeply integrated and since it's clear that schools in historically poor areas are frequently blessed with funding equal to that enjoyed by schools in historically affluent areas.

They could make socio-economic status the tie-breaker instead of race and that would appear to quell Justice Roberts criticisms of the Seattle and Jefferson County plans.

[xrayzebra]

I see this as another twisted story that distorts the truth into a lie. No wonder we have so many misinformed voters, and get a terrible government

No, no, you don't understand. We must have diversity.
Diversity, diversity, diversity. Like people cant learn to
interact with each other without the government
doing the mixing.
:rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

I see this as another twisted story that distorts the truth into a lie. No wonder we have so many misinformed voters, and get a terrible government

How do you know what the real story is? You admit that you didn't read the opinion, nor do you even know what the case was about. In replying to this thread, you started talking about how busing was a problem.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, no, you don't understand. We must have diversity.
Diversity, diversity, diversity. Like people cant learn to
interact with each other without the government
doing the mixing.
:rolleyes


ray your a twerp

[Mr. Peabody]

No, no, you don't understand. We must have diversity.
Diversity, diversity, diversity. Like people cant learn to
interact with each other without the government
doing the mixing.
:rolleyes

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that diversity is conducive to a learning environment.

[Mr. Peabody]

ray your a twerp

:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that diversity is conducive to a learning environment.


no ray wants a segregated society. all people alike can keep from learning about or interacting from anyone from another race..Ray's perfect world

[smeagol]

Why the fuck is America so fucked up when it comes to races?

Brazil has blacks and whites living in harmony.

Fucking learn!

They also put ethanol into their cars.

[Mr. Peabody]

Why the fuck is America so fucked up when it comes to races?

Brazil has blacks and whites living in harmony.

Fucking learn!

They also put ethanol into their cars.

Did the Blacks and whites ever enslave one another?

[Extra Stout]

They could make socio-economic status the tie-breaker instead of race and that would appear to quell Justice Roberts criticisms of the Seattle and Jefferson County plans.
Using socio-economic status does a better job of accomplishing diversity than race alone does anyway.

[Yonivore]

Using socio-economic status does a better job of accomplishing diversity than race alone does anyway.
So, you advocate a means test?

[Wild Cobra]

Why the fuck is America so fucked up when it comes to races?

Because we have race-baiters like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. If the blacks become equal, they are out of a job!


Brazil has blacks and whites living in harmony.

Fucking learn!

I agree. We need to stop looking at color, and look at the character of people.

Wait, didn't MLK say something like that?

Think the majority of the black community takes it to heart? No, they are "victims" and complain and keep themselves down by expecting government help instead of making things better for themselves.

It would help if we didn't have such an easy welfare system to access too.


They also put ethanol into their cars.

Different subject, but keep in mind, you have a better growing climate for it near the equator.

[Extra Stout]

Why the fuck is America so fucked up when it comes to races?

Brazil has blacks and whites living in harmony.

Fucking learn!

They also put ethanol into their cars.
Brazil's history is not that of the U.S.

The institution of slavery, the Civil War, and its aftermath, figure prominently in America's history.

[Extra Stout]

So, you advocate a means test?
As a tiebreaker for the case like Seattle's? Yes.

The top 10% rule for Texas universities is meant to accomplish the same thing, except on the college level.

[Yonivore]

As a tiebreaker for the case like Seattle's? Yes.

The top 10% rule for Texas universities is meant to accomplish the same thing, except on the college level.
If you're suggesting we remove race from the question, altogether, that's admirable. However, introducing a means test to determine school assignment seems unnecessary given there's no statutory requirement to insure a student body is economically diverse. And, merely basing your assertion on the belief such a strategy will achieve racial diversity is probably not justifiable...nor is it required. So, why would anyone do it?

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would be making race-based assignments in a day when our government is supposed to be color-blind. So, back to the argument this constitutes some kind of backsliding into forced segregation:

For the simple-minded that see this as a decision between either upholding integration or forcing segregation, lets review:

The case actually involves two school assignment plans: one for high school students in Seattle and one for elementary school students in Kentucky. In Seattle, 41 percent of the students in the school district, as a whole, are white; the remaining 59 percent are classified as "non-white." The system allows incoming ninth graders to state their preferences as to which high schools they wish to attend. If too many students pick the same school, the system resorts to "tiebreakers." The first tiebreaker is whether a sibling currently attends the school. The second tiebreaker is race, if the school is not within 10 percentage points of the district's overall racial balance -- i.e., if the school is less than 31 percent or more than 51 percent white.

The Kentucky school district allows parents of new students to state their top two elementary school choices among schools in their "cluster." Assignment decisions are based on availability and on "racial guidelines." If a school has a percentage of students of a particular race that exceeds the guidelines, the student will not be assigned there.

In practice, the racial component of the plans did not adversely affect large numbers of students. However, in Seattle, Jill Kurfirst was unable to enroll her son Andy Meek in Ballard High School's special Biotechnology Career Academy because he is white. Andy suffered from certain learning disorders but had made good progress in middle school due to hands-on instruction. His mother and middle school teachers thought that the smaller biotechnology program provided his best hope for continued success. He was accepted into this competitive program but because the high school was more than 51 percent white, he lost out due to his race.

In Kentucky, Joshua McDonald was assigned to a kindergarten 10 miles from his house. His mother tried to have him transferred to a school nine miles closer. The school had space for him, but Joshua was not allowed to switch because of the "impact" his inclusion would have on the school's racial balance.

By a 5-4 majority, the Court found both plans unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion which holds, that the plans could not be sustained based on either of the two "compelling interests" that have been recognized as justifying the use of racial classifications in this context. First, it could not be justified on the basis of the interest in remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination. In the case of Seattle, there was no evidence that the school system had ever engaged in such discrimination. In the case of Kentucky, there had been past discrimination, but beginning in 1975 the school system operated under a court decree, and in 2000 the court found that the vestiges and effects associated with the past discrimination had been eliminated.

Nor could the use of race in assignments be justified by the other compelling interest recognized in Supreme Court jurisprudence -- the desire for diversity in higher education upheld in the Grutter case. In the higher education cases, the compelling interest is based on what each student as an individual brings to the school, with racial or ethnic origin being one element of the package. In the Seattle and Kentucky cases, by contrast, race is not part of a broader effort to achieve exposure to diverse people and ideas. Rather, when it comes into play as it did for Andy Meeks and Joshua McDaniel, it is the sole consideration.

The second key part of the Roberts opinion rejects the argument that racial assignments are justified by the educational beneifts of reducing racial concentration in schools and of ensuring a racially integrated environment. Roberts did not opine on the extent to which educational and social benefits flow from racial diversity in public schools. Instead, he rejected the school districts' defense because the racial classifications they used were not narrowly tailored to the goal of achieving the educational and social benefits said to flow from racial diversity. Seattle wanted white enrollment of between 31 and 51 percent in each high school. The district in Kentucky wanted black enrollment in elementary school to be no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent. Apparently, there was no evidence that these numbers (which are based on the racial demographics of the overall districts) have any close relationship with the level of diversity needed to realize the asserted educational benefits.

Diversity may -- according to previous precedent -- confer educational benefits by, for example, exposing students to members of diverse groups and diverse viewpoints. And a "critical mass" of "diverse" individuals may be necessary to make this work. But proportional representation isn't necessarily the same thing as critical mass. At Franklin High in Seattle, for example, without the use of race-based assignments the racial composition would have been 40 percent Asian-American, 30 percent African-American, 21 percent white, 8 percent Latino. Surely, that's plenty of diversity for purposes of exposure to different kinds of people and preventing racial isolation; it just wasn't close enough to proportional representation of whites to satisfy the city's bureaucrats.

Having shown that the real state interest in these cases was simply racial balancing, Roberts then concluded that this interest is legally insufficient to justify the use of racial classifications. He wrote: "However closely related race-based assignments may be to achieving racial balance, that itself cannot be the goal whether labeled 'racial diverstiy' or anything else."

So, you see, it wasn't all about getting the blacks back into schools by themselves.

[Extra Stout]

If you're suggesting we remove race from the question, altogether, that's admirable. However, introducing a means test to determine school assignment seems unnecessary given there's no statutory requirement to insure a student body is economically diverse. And, merely basing your assertion on the belief such a strategy will achieve racial diversity is probably not justifiable...nor is it required. So, why would anyone do it?
There is no statutory requirement, but neither is there a statutory prohibition.

Alternately, a school could define multiple factors to achieve diversity.

[Yonivore]

There is no statutory requirement, but neither is there a statutory prohibition.

Alternately, a school could define multiple factors to achieve diversity.
Why would they institute any strategy without a mandate. That's the kind of stuff that gets you sued.

[Extra Stout]

Why would they institute any strategy without a mandate. That's the kind of stuff that gets you sued.
In America, doing anything gets you sued, as well as not doing some particular thing somebody wants you to do. We should kill at least half our lawyers.

A school district has to have a policy for determining which school its students go to. If they offer school choice, there has to be some kind of policy for who gets chosen if demand for a particular school exceeds available capacity. Since they have to have a policy as a matter of course, if they choose to elect applicants based upon achieving a diverse population, what is wrong with that?

[Yonivore]

In America, doing anything gets you sued, as well as not doing some particular thing somebody wants you to do. We should kill at least half our lawyers.
That's harsh. Maybe we should just quit being so litigious...the lawyers will die off on their own.


A school district has to have a policy for determining which school its students go to.
How 'bout the old fashioned way? You go to the school closest to your house. If it gets too crowded, the district builds another, throws a bunch of portables out on the playground, or redraws the school attendance boundaries, geographically, to spread out the excess pupils.


If they offer school choice, there has to be some kind of policy for who gets chosen if demand for a particular school exceeds available capacity.
First come first served is a tried and true method. Applications, deadlines, and date stampers. If people can camp out for iPhones, they can camp out to get their kid in the school of preference.


Since they have to have a policy as a matter of course, if they choose to elect applicants based upon achieving a diverse population, what is wrong with that?
Well, because they apparently don't know how to do it and not be unconstitutional...as this ruling shows.

[Nbadan]

Looks like Yoni has some strange company, or not...

Major Victory for Parents in America! And its About Time!


National Director Thomas Robb of The Knights Party, said on Thursday that he was extremely pleased with the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the desire of white parents who did not want their children to be a part of America’s greatest social experiment tragedy.

"America has held dear to the concept of freedom of association and yet Brown V. Board of Education took that most fundamental right away from parents in choosing the most appropriate schools and resultant playmates and peers for their children," Robb said.

-snip-

Linky (http://rackjite.com/serendipity/archives/387-KKK-Applauds-Supreme-Court-Ruling.html)

There ya go, it's not often the SCOTUS goes pro-KKK