5-4: Resegregation Now!

[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 is America so ed 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.

ing 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 is America so ed up when it comes to races?

Brazil has blacks and whites living in harmony.

ing learn!

They also put ethanol into their cars.

Brazil's history is not that of the U.S.

The ins ution 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 cons utes 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 compe ive 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 uncons utional. 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 ins ute any strategy without a mandate. That's the kind of stuff that gets you sued.

[Extra Stout]

Why would they ins ute 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 uncons utional...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

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