Conservative Court Rules Whites En led to better Education
Resegregation Now
Published: June 29, 2007
NY TimesThe 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 Cons ution 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.
Roberts twisted the meaning of the words quoted from Brown vs BOE in the most di able 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.”
Last edited by Nbadan; 06-29-2007 at 02:05 AM.
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.
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.
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 cons utionally 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:I hate to tell you this, but this is Cons utionalism, not activism. Every elected and appointed official is supposed to uphold the Cons ution. Also note that this is ONE OF THE MAIN DUTIES OF THE SUPREME COURT.So did their supposed opposition to “judicial activism.” This decision is the height of activism: federal judges relying on the Cons ution to tell elected local officials what to do.
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.
Thank God we finally have a court that goes by the Cons ution
instead of "feel good" and PC.
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.
I agree with you..then this will lead to all black,white,hispanic schools..that's a good thing right?
A short do entary about the public school system in Louisville, KY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY16_...elated&search=
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.
I don't see how a court ruling striking down race-based school admissions policies can be construed as re-segregation.
Do enlighten me.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
ray your a twerp
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that diversity is conducive to a learning environment.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.
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
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.
Did the Blacks and whites ever enslave one another?
Using socio-economic status does a better job of accomplishing diversity than race alone does anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
