Brown v. Board of Education is dead
Abandon all hope if ye enter here, non-lawyers.
I’d encourage you all to read the opinion and the dissents here. This will probably appear as a polemical post to some; it’s a polemical issue. The fact is, I live in Seattle and my schools will be affected by the Court’s decision today. I feel saddened that another attempt to arrive at racial diversity in schools has been struck down. I can sympathize with parents whose children had to be bussed across the city as a result of the prior “tiebreaker” system; I can understand those families who moved out of my ward years ago to avoid the school system altogether.
But at the same time, I get the distinct impression that the Court here has effectively gutted any attempts at racial diversity that work via, well, race. Instead we can look forward to ham-fisted diversity agendas pushed through under the guise of purely economic differences. The Court shows itself incapable of facing up to the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jack Greenberg, my civ pro professor who argued Brown, filed an amicus brief in the case that is both moving and an essential primer in Brown — it’s available here, and it’s an excellent read.
Stevens’ dissent may sound over-the-top, but I found it moving and persuasive. I just don’t know where the 14th Amendment is these days.
——————————————
Justice Stevens, dissenting. [note: footnotes have been edited]
While I join Justice Breyer’s eloquent and unanswerable dissent in its entirety, it is appropriate to add these words.
There is a cruel irony in The Chief Justice’s reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.” This sentence reminds me of Anatole France’s observation: “[T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court’s most important decisions. Compare “history will be heard”, with Brewer v. Quarterman (Roberts, C. J., dissenting) “It is a familiar adage that history is written by the victors”.
The Chief Justice rejects the conclusion that the racial classifications at issue here should be viewed differently than others, because they do not impose burdens on one race alone and do not stigmatize or exclude. The only justification for refusing to acknowledge the obvious importance of that difference is the citation of a few recent opinions–none of which even approached unanimity–grandly proclaiming that all racial classifications must be analyzed under “strict scrutiny.” See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena. Even today, two of our wisest federal judges have rejected such a wooden reading of the Equal Protection Clause in the context of school integration. The Court’s misuse of the three-tiered approach to Equal Protection analysis merely reconfirms my own view that there is only one such Clause in the Constitution. See Craig v. Boren.
If we look at cases decided during the interim between Brown and Adarand, we can see how a rigid adherence to tiers of scrutiny obscures Brown’s clear message. Perhaps the best example is provided by our approval of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1967 upholding a state statute mandating racial integration in that State’s school system. See School Comm. of Boston v. Board of Education. Rejecting arguments comparable to those that the plurality accepts today, that court noted: “It would be the height of irony if the racial imbalance act, enacted as it was with the laudable purpose of achieving equal educational opportunities, should, by prescribing school pupil allocations based on race, founder on unsuspected shoals in the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Invoking our mandatory appellate jurisdiction, the Boston plaintiffs prosecuted an appeal in this Court. Our ruling on the merits simply stated that the appeal was “dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” That decision not only expressed our appraisal of the merits of the appeal, but it constitutes a precedent that the Court overrules today. The subsequent statements by the unanimous Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., by then-Justice Rehnquist in chambers in Bustop, Inc. v. Los Angeles Bd. of Ed., and by the host of state court decisions cited by Justice Breyer were fully consistent with that disposition. Unlike today’s decision, they were also entirely loyal to Brown.
The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.
I suspect John Roberts would say, rather, that this decision indicates Brown v. Board of Education is more alive than ever.
Comment by Mark D. — June 28, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Mark D., that’s precisely what he would say.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
In layman’s terms, could someone please summarize what happened?
Comment by John Williams — June 28, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Steve, assuming that you will be in Seattle at the time, will you be sending your kids to public or private school?
Comment by J. Stapley — June 28, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
J., I intend to send them to public school. I’m not rich like you folks on the East Side.
John, here’s as neutral a summary as I can muster: Seattle and Louisville both had school integration plans. Seattle’s used race as a “tiebreaker” consideration for assigning students. I’m not too familiar with exactly how the Louisville plan worked, but apparently they set targets of at least 15% minorities and no more than 50% minorities.
Anyways, the decision declared both systems unconstitutional. Such systems are subject to “strict scrutiny,” which means that they’ll be considered unconstitutional unless they are “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling” government interest. In the real world, this means that broad reforms involving race are typically dead in the water. Individual cases of rectification may be permissible. This decision makes it substantially more difficult for school systems to pass constitutional muster whenever they take measures with respect to race-based issues. As Jeffrey Toobin says, “This is a decision that says school districts cannot use any racial factors to decide how to assign kids.”
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Thanks for the summary, Steve.
I am persuaded that certain races are generally less well-off than others at least in part because of the attitude that they grow up with vis-a-vis education. So I think that racial integration could be helpful in helping break down economic inequalities. I have been in contact with economically unfortunate black people who seemed rather smart but who apparently came from backgrounds where education was not particuarly valued. I think environmental pressure can strongly influence how much effort someone puts into their education.
Comment by John Williams — June 28, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Funny. I consider race-based discrimination as against the 14th amendment.
I agree with Justice Roberts: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Nobody should have their race count against them in America.
Programs based on economic factors would be great. They would achieve racial diversity and, more importantly, they would achieve socio-economic diversity.
Comment by Tom — June 28, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
I dunno Steve. The state educational system today is not even close to what it was at the time of Brown. Yes, discrimination still exists; but, all the legislation and judicial opining in the world won’t do away with that. It won’t be until people can root it out of their hearts will there be a more fair and equitable educational system, and society in general.
Granted I haven’t yet read the Seattle School District cases, and I’m certain your opinion is more informed than mine–but I’m a bit hesitant to jump to the Brown is dead conclusion.
Comment by Guy Murray — June 28, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Tom, I can understand your view; Roberts’ tautology makes for a nice sound bite, that’s for sure. But I don’t share your faith in purely economic-based programs. The root of the race problem in America is not economic.
Guy, I read you — but we can’t wait until the return of the Messiah to work towards fair and equitable educational systems…. and yes, it’s hyperbole to say that Brown is dead. I’ll admit that it’s not dead — but I sure don’t know where it is anymore.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
I figure I would weigh in under the Bizarro name as Kevin Barney will probably comment here as well.
I’m not an attorney, but I have noticed the definite swing to the right in this weeks’ Supreme Court decisions. I too find Justice Steven’s dissent compelling, but then again I am leftist socialist wacko (read: moderate Democrat).
We have also seen various other efforts from this administration attempting to, in my opinion, weaken the 14th amendment guarantees, and strengthening executive privilege at the expense of individual rights. Let me give my example of the other decision this week that has been weighing on my admittedly non-legal mind.
The court announced Monday, also on a 5 to 4 margin, to deny individuals to challenge the President’s Faith Based Initiatives, where federal funds are going to religious organizations to assist in delivering certain social services. While some may cynically point out that in actuality, the whole faith based initiatives were more politically motivated to warm the social conservatives in the Republican voter base, it actually weakens the doctrine of separation of church and state. In effect, the court decided that since Congress had expressly given the executive the specific authority to fund these religiously based programs at the discretion of the President, then no one may challenge the actual assignment of those funds. The President is allowed to favor one religious group over another.
As members of a church that has suffered the worst kinds of persecution both by individuals and governments in our earlier history, and is now under attack by both evangelicals and conservative political elements for being religious fanatics, we should be very concerned about any encroachments on that separation of church and state.
One of the most important functions of the constitution is both to majority rule and the protection of minorities from that majority rule. It’s a balancing act that is constantly being adjusted, challenged, and redirected. Brown vs Board of Education was a huge step in correcting a societal injustice, and contributed much to the lessening of racial tensions in this country. Many feel that affirmative action pushed us too far in the other direction, and if so, it is natural that there would be a need for some adjustment. I feel that this decision pulls too far back.
As a Puget Sound Eastside resident, and husband of a public school teacher, I have watched the Seattle schools with some interest. While their school choice and assignment programs often seemed byzantine to the outside observer, that district still struggles with inequality issues today. This decision, while hailed by many local parents, does present problems in addressing both economic and racial inequalities in our public school systems. Add to that the push for school vouchers, and we may soon find that public schools are left only to the most idealistic, and those with the least power and most to lose in trying to gain a quality education.
Cross examination, counselor?
Comment by Bizarro Kevin (aka kevinf) — June 28, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
As complex as this issue is, I think it can be boiled down to one question: is so-called “benign” racism (or racism for the purpose of remedying past wrongs) allowable under 5A and 14A?
But I think Steve is absolutely wrong from a policy point of view, to the extent he is implying that Seattle and KC’s policies were a general positive for society. Busing has never worked. Forced intergration has never worked. People either purposefully move away from it, or get to the schools and then go find people of their own race. When I studied this in law school, the social statistics indicated that neither blacks nor whites liked it. Accordingly, I don’t know the solution to this problem, but I don’t think that government intervention, at least on this direct a level, is the answer.
Which leads to my opinion on this issue: if it’s constitutionally questionable, and it doesn’t work anyway, why are we even trying it?
Comment by jimbob — June 28, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
jimbob, I guess some people don’t like racism! Maybe we ought to let everyone just associate with their own races. Separate but equal?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Steve,
I think for the most part folks do just associate with their own races. But, I don’t know what the quick yet effective answers are.
Comment by Guy Murray — June 28, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
As I understand it, Louisville’s program established minimum and maximum numbers for the percent of black children in a school. If you wanted to go to a certain school and your going there would have moved the percentage of black students below 15% or above 50% (or something like that), you were denied admission.
Comment by Tom — June 28, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Guy, yes you’re right that whites generally hang out with whites, asians with asians, etc. And jimbob rightly points out that integration has not been easy. p.s. jimbob — we’re talking about Louisville, not KC — Louisville’s system has generally been touted as a success story.
The fact is that the vicious cycle of isolating black children in their schools and white kids in other schools is ugly and evil. It is something bad enough that we must keep trying to prevent it and remedy it via government intervention (after all, schools are government institutions), even if a constitutional solution is difficult to find.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Perhaps you can point out the part in my post where I advocate racism by abondoning busing. Please stop knocking down my straw man (otherwise, I’m going to have to buy a new one).
My point was clearly not that racism is good, only that this busing/forced intergration system ostensibly built to combat racism does nothing of the kind. Indeed, lots of people smarter than me actually think it exacerbates race relations–creates an even greater propensity for white flight, e.g. As such, I think the devotion to this cause by those on the left is similar to the devotion of those on the right as it relates to abstinence-only sex eduction: it seems like it should work in theory, but it clearly doesn’t in practice, and so continuing to push the agenda is rather silly.
Comment by jimbob — June 28, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Steve, I’m curious to have you flesh that out for us… It would seem they are intimately tied together.
Comment by Tracy M — June 28, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Steve,
Why do you think that economic affirmative action wouldn’t lead to greater racial diversity in cities where the poor are overwhelmingly disproportionately black (which is most big cities)?
A great benefit of economic-based programs is that they would help the disadvantaged of all races. Also, they wouldn’t make individuals’ race count against them.
I share the desire to end segregation, even if it is self-segregation. But I don’t believe all means are justified. State-sanctioned racial discrimination is one of the means that I don’t believe is justified. It violates the right of individuals to not have their race count against them.
Comment by Tom — June 28, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
As much as I might not like it on paper I do have to admit that the legal precedent of this should it have passed could be used in a contrary manner (IE: You cannot have more than x% minorities in a school)and thereby be very bad. You gotta take the good with the bad.
Comment by ronito — June 28, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Jimbob: “Perhaps you can point out the part in my post where I advocate racism by abondoning [sic] busing.”
Perhaps you, in turn, could point out where I said you advocated racism? No need for me to knock down your straw men for such a thing (although I would think that you’d leave such coy parentheticals behind after 2L moot court).
Your argument seems to rest on the notion that Brown (i.e., forced integration, which is the direct effect of Brown) doesn’t work. I disagree with that conclusion of yours, and I believe that the logical conclusion of your standpoint is that you’d be fine with separate but equal so long as no one was “forced.” Who are the people “smarter than you” who claim that mixed schooling exacerbates race relations?
You lost me with the comparison to sex education, though. Are you just trying to cite an example of hopeless devotion to a cause that doesn’t work in reality? If so, I disagree both with the nature of the comparison and with your conclusions that integration doesn’t “work.”
Finally, how is it not racist to say that continuing to strive for racially diverse schools is “rather silly?” Or, if not racist, defeatist about improving race relations in American schools?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Tracy, you’re right that economics and racism are tied together. They no doubt feed off each other. But they are not interchangeable, and I believe that economic solutions are not a panacea to race relations.
Tom, I share your view that economic measures could go a long way towards helping racial diversity; I simply view them as imperfect. I don’t doubt that they would help somewhat, but ultimately purely economic measures don’t make up for the fact that some white people just hate blacks — if you want an ill-fitting analogy, it wasn’t economics that kept black golfers from playing at Augusta until 1975.
Look, if you’re telling me (and I think the Supreme Court is telling me) that economic countermeasures are all I have left as a remedy, I’ll take ‘em. I do like the way they help all the poor regardless of race.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Well, economics-based programs are imperfect, but so are race-based programs. For example, race-based affirmative action favors middle and upper class minorities at the expense of both poor minorities and poor whites and Asians.
Comment by Tom — June 28, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Not to mention the fact that race-based discrimination in schools leads to things like a girl being forced to spend hours on a bus to get to her school because she’s the wrong color.
My concern with economics-based affirmative action is that I’m not sure it’s fair to make a rich girl spend hours on a bus to attend public school just because her parents have too much money. But at least in that kind of case, she would have other options.
Comment by Tom — June 28, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Hmmm, we have something similar in Utah (at least in the Davis County School district. We’ve already been told that our daughter will be bused past two high schools to another school. The test scores are lower at this school than anyplace else, so all the high schools have to share students to force the test scores up.
Comment by jjohnsen — June 28, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
I grew up on the West side of Salt Lake during the heyday of sticking all the smart kids together in one school. When somebody figure out in about 5th grade I was smart, they started busing me over to the East side with a half a dozen other smart West-side kids to join the two dozen or so East-side kids in the smart kid class. There was, incidentally, another smart kid class of about 30, but they were all East side kids, as I understand it, and the school was located further up the bench instead of just at the boundary between the better-off East side and poor East side.
For political reasons, they stuck the smart kid classes for 7-12 grade at West High school (the rough school supposedly, and the one I should have gone to) and I think it did make a difference. Most of the people in honors and AP/IB classes were the same ones I’d been going to school with since 5th grade, but there were a few new faces–frequently ambitious West side kids who just hadn’t scored well enough to beat out the already emplaced East siders. The East side smart kids were disproportionately in charge of student body stuff, but there was definite power sharing with the West-siders, and some genuine friendships. Significantly, there were a number of marriages across economic boundaries (not racial–this is Utah, after all).
At its worst Utah doesn’t have the level of economic disparity seen in a big city, but I do think if you introduce poor kids to middle class environments, you will see economic integration that is beneficial for all parties. As much bad as racism does, I think economic segregation and classism will soon be as tough a problem. I’m not happy with the decision either (actually, there’s very little this supreme court has decided that I’m happy about) but I do think we can still attack racial issues, and possibly more effectively by focusing on the economics that are every bit as detrimental.
Comment by kristine N — June 28, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Steve,
I find when I pull out the sics, it’s usually because I’m feeling particularly annoyed with the other side and am anxious to pedantically point out even small foibles. Perhaps I’m unique in that regard. Now, if we only knew somebody who had the authority to install a spell check here so that sics would be unneccessary…
No, it isn’t. My only conclusion is that I’m against costly and futile attempts at forced intergration in favor of something that actually works and that doesn’t violate the constitution.
I think you’re being unfair as it relates to Brown, because you’re comparing the de jure segregation there to the de facto segregation schools are trying to ameliorate in cases like the one here. The reason integration after Brown worked is because the reason for the segregation was based on a law. Thus, once the law was removed, if the geography worked out, nothing (besides extreme animus) was keeping kids from attending school together. But in the case of de facto segregation, which is what we’re talking about in this case, the real lynch pin is that people tend to self-select (which usually means whites moving away, but not always just that).
Accordingly, I think you’re being unfair when you ask me if I think Brown hasn’t worked; I believe Brown did exactly what it was meant to do: strike down laws disallowing white kids and black kids from going to school together, among other things. But we’re not really talking about Brown’s facts anymore when we get to busing. That is, Brown was not about “forced integration,” as you state, but instead about outlawing segregation. Conversely, this case is about forced integration in spite of the fact that forced segregation is already illegal. It’s the difference between opening the door and forcing someone to walk through it.
I’m all for racially diverse schools. In part, I chose the neighborhood I live in so my kids would be introduced to lots different kinds of people at their school (plus we’re close to a Krispy Kreme.) I just think this is the wrong way to go about creating racial diversity. In fact, I think this is a “rather silly” way to go about it, as it doesn’t seem to work.
Not anticipating this discussion today, I’m not sure if I have social data handy to prove it globally doesn’t work very well very often. However, this post at wikipedia seems to prove my point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing (although it’s hard to recommend as it has no citations). Can you produce something showing it does work on more than a sporadic basis? I have a hard time believing that you can, but I’m willing to change my mind. Or is your point that the real victory is in trying, regardless of results? If that’s true, then I guess we’ll just have to disagree. I’m far too practical for expensive gestures.
Then you really aren’t trying very hard. The part after the colon is pretty clear.
You thought wrong; I live to be coy, and I find it best to be so parenthetically. And might I also point out the irony of pointing out a coy parenthetical by using a coy parenthetical?
(I didn’t spell check any of this.)
Comment by jimbob — June 28, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Perhaps this will get me tarred and feathered, but frankly I do not see why the government should force anyone to associate with someone they don’t want to. In terms of racism, I think there is very little literal racism. By this I mean where a person is disliked solely for the color of their skin/genetic makeup. I would advocate their is more cultural discrimination. Example, I do not want my children hanging around certain backgrounds because of the great potential for negative influence. I am sure someone will say, “But what about the good your children can do?” My answer would be I would rather not gamble with my children, hoping they do not pick up as much as they influence. Discrimination is wrong, and I can see why in the past the idea of discrimination based on race was made illegal. However, in today’s society there are so many opportunities for people to excel, that it would be asinine for a company to bypass a great candidate based on their skin, because they could go to a competitor and create a competitive disadvantage. In short (too late for that) I say I favor a free market system. In economics, and I think the same principles can be applied to societal issues.
Comment by Puck — June 28, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
I was there at the Supreme Court this morning and heard this decision announced. Be very jealous, everyone!
Comment by Anna — June 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
#28 I am. Scalia is hot! LOL
Comment by Dana — June 28, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
jimbob, thank you for explaining your stance a little more in-depth; I understand more of what you were trying to get at, and I appreciate it very much.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
Steve, your obituary is not just hyperbole, it’s impossible. Brown v. Board will live forever as the case that ended separate but equal. Brown said segregation was wrong, but it didn’t tell us how to fix the problem. The unending problem since Brown is: “now what?” How do we ensure that de facto segregation doesn’t persist because of economic factors? Is forced busing the answer? Are racial quotas ok? We have never found the perfect way to make Brown truly effective. This latest case is just the most extreme example in that ongoing struggle. Stay tuned, it’s not over.
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
First, I agree 100% with Brown, specifically because it focused on allowing every student access to a system in which s/he could gain a quality education that was being denied solely on the basis of race. As long as that is the intent and result, I will support the concept. Once that no longer is the intent and the result, I will not support the practice.
I am bothered more than a little by busing that is undertaken to manipulate school-wide academic results on standardized tests (#24). Such a move does nothing to improve teaching and increase student performance; rather it does nothing more than hide bad instruction by evening broad evaluation measures. Yes, it raises scores in low performing schools, but it does absolutely nothing to improve education for poor performing students.
I want educational reform to focus on one thing and one thing only - creating, system-wide, an acceptable minimum standard of quality among teachers and administrators. Identifying and addressing institutional practices that inhibit reform (like tenure independent of student performance, lack of district-wide curricular uniformity, pay scales based solely on longevity, the inability to evaluate and terminate bad teachers, certification restrictions that do not allow professionals from other areas to move into teaching easily, etc.) will do more to fix the root problems within the public school system at large than forced racial integration - and will make that unnecessary, if accomplished.
Having said that, as with other issues, I want consistency. I say do one of two things: no busing or complete and equal integration by race and socio-economic status. Either make schools equal in the opportunity they are able to provide regardless of student body composition (the ideal) or make them equal based on that composition (the compromise).
If we are going to bus, then bus equally. Do a statistical analysis, then assign students to each school in such a way that each school will be as close to an exact racial and socio-economic replica of the others as is humanly possible. If you believe in something, commit to it fully and see if it works.
Comment by Ray — June 28, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
Jimbob stated very well what I’m feeling on this issue. “Separate but equal” was shorthand for “trying to be fair while enforcing separation by race.” It is a policy I’m glad to see gone. I’m also glad the court struck down more state-sanction racism.
Scott Hinrichs (Reach Upward) has, as usual, a great article up on his blog today about immigration. It is surprisingly relevant to this post. In particular, the second half of his post argues that mixing races and cultures is bad in the short term and good in the long term.
Comment by Bradley Ross — June 28, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
MCQ, I’m sure you’re right.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Jack Balkin makes an important point: the change might not be as drastic as it appears.
More here.
Comment by ed johnson — June 29, 2007 @ 12:49 am
The problem Brown was trying to solve was laws that treated different classes of people differently. The 14th Amendment solves that problem, so far as race goes, if it is taken seriously. This decision takes it seriously.
“Rule of law” means nothing if we have different laws for different classes of people, as blacks in the Jim Crow South could see. If we all need to live by the same law, then we have to think about principles as we legislate, and in doing so we learn. If we can easily gerrymander our laws to include the groups that at the moment have political clout, our attention turns from principles to expediency.
The Constitution doesn’t solve social problems. But it should create a just framework that doesn’t confer titles of nobility or other preferences.
If your dream is integration, have at it. Just don’t create different laws for different races. Such laws create entire industries dedicated to fostering a sense of perpetual grievance, insuring the “problem” will never be fixed. The way to end racial discrimination is to end racial discrimination.
Comment by Michael Umphrey — June 29, 2007 @ 2:52 am
Couldn’t this ruling actually be seen as consistent with Brown in that it disallows the state to “force” people to do things based on race? Brown struck down state laws forcing racial segregation of public schools, i.e. “forcing” people to go to certain schools because of their skin color; this ruling disallows school districts from maintaining racial integration of public schools through “forcing” people to go to certain schools because of their skin color.
Steve, you said that Roberts’s statement that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race†was a great sound bite but you didn’t say what about it is objectionable. This isn’t actually a true tautology, is it? The noun “discrimination” is changed to a verb-gerund in the second half, “discriminating”. By this statement, Roberts seems to be saying that the state — or the state’s schools — should not be discriminating based on skin color. This principle seems uncontroversial.
The case itself is instructive: the actual Louisville plaintiff, Crystal Meredith (white), sued because her child was not allowed to go to the school nearest their home but was forced to make a three-hour bus ride to school every day (that can’t be beneficial — or safe — for a child, white or black). In the Louisville situation, many African American parents voiced similar concerns. That is an important point. The Louisville plan was particularly quota-based, with a strict provision that each individual school had to be at least 15 percent black but no more than 50 percent black. I am very interested to hear your views on the benefits of that system.
Meredith, the Louisville plaintiff, explained how the system affected her child in practice, as quoted on CNN:
It seems some kind of relief was in order for Meredith and people like her.
Racial integration is an admirable goal — particularly in the sense that when it exists organically it can indicate a reduction in animosity between races. I am interested in your statement that a focus on economic affirmative action is not a desirable alternative to forced racial integration plans.
Comment by john f. — June 29, 2007 @ 4:34 am
Sorry about the sic, I couldn’t resist. You might consider looking into the latest version of Firefox, however; one of its many features is a built-in spell check.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 29, 2007 @ 5:14 am
One of the Seattle plaintiffs was a ADHD boy who was denied admission to all three schools that had continuations of a program in which he had excelled after much struggle and he ended up being forced to take three city buses to get to his school with a commute time of two hours each way.
One of the worst things in all of this is that the Seattle program was shown to have very little impact on diversity. So individual children were bearing a heavy cost for the sake of a tiny, soft benefit for the system. As good as integration is, it’s not worth burdening individuals so much just because of their race. When we discriminate against people on the basis of race we make more victims of our predecessors’ mistakes.
I believe it was one of the lower court judges who upheld the Seattle program partly because it doesn’t excessively burden or benefit one single group. That may be true, but it misses the point. It’s individuals whose rights are violated by race-based discrimination. An individual’s membership in a particular racial group should not invalidate their individual rights.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 5:46 am
This shows how vastly important it was for the Bush administration to win that 2004 general election. I think they don’t mind as much that they are so disliked right now. Why? Because they got what they wanted. A conservative Supreme Court. Now, challenge after challenge on more progressive plans will be struck down. This is what they wanted, and this is what Americans gave them. No one should be surprised, only saddened.
Comment by Dan — June 29, 2007 @ 7:55 am
Tom & John F., I said in my post that my heart goes out to those children and parents who suffer because of these initiatives. I too am uncomfortable with such consequences, but I view them as superior to the alternative of forcing blacks to languish in inferior schools while white students get the best education.
John F., your read on the tautology is probably correct, although I disagree with the conclusion that all that is needed to end racial discrimination is for people to stop discriminating. How does that remedy harms caused by pre-existing discrimination?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 8:11 am
I am pleased with this court decision. I find the type of public sanctioned discrimination present in the Seattle school district to be offensive and a clear violation of the 14th amendment.
I also find it interesting that so much race discrimination is practiced by education departments across the country from local school districts to Universities. Why is this? It seems to me that its the last bastion of state sponsered discrimination since Jim Crow fell.
I was once at a University the victim of state sponsered discrimination in the form of priority registration given to minorities. IE. White students got last pick of classes after all non-whites had got to select first.
I was involved in filing a lawsuit against this policy. All it took to overthrow the policy was filing the lawsuit and calling a reporter. A deeply embarrassed public university dropped the discriminatory policy like a hot potato.
Comment by bbell — June 29, 2007 @ 8:12 am
Overall, let me point out the obvious — I’m waiting for a non-white person to chime in here. Seems like there are a lot of rich white folks awfully pleased with this decision.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 8:16 am
whoa.
Comment by john f. — June 29, 2007 @ 8:23 am
(ronito’s not white, I believe)
Comment by john f. — June 29, 2007 @ 8:24 am
john f., maybe so, I don’t know. But he didn’t seem to particularly like the decision, either…
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 8:27 am
re # 41:
I too am uncomfortable with such consequences, but I view them as superior to the alternative of forcing blacks to languish in inferior schools while white students get the best education.
It doesn’t seem obvious that blacks languishing in inferior schools while white students get the best education is the alternative to shutting down these race-based quota programs.
I disagree with the conclusion that all that is needed to end racial discrimination is for people to stop discriminating. How does that remedy harms caused by pre-existing discrimination?
This is difficult to understand. It seems the argument is that current discrimination based on race is needed to remedy harm caused by pre-existing discrimination based on race.
Comment by john f. — June 29, 2007 @ 8:29 am
Steve, while I also would like to hear from someone who is not white, I have spent much of the last 15 years working primarily in the inner cities for the equalization of education for all - particularly the poor. Equality of educational opportunity in their neighborhood schools is what almost everyone with whom I have worked (educators and parents) wants - and that sentiment is strongest in some of the poorest areas. They would FAR rather eliminate busing if their neighborhood school was adequate.
Just about everyone who really thinks about it understands that there always will be higher performing schools as you climb the socio-economic ladder; what they want is the elimination of blatant institutional failure in individual schools or districts. If that were to happen, the busing need would disappear - as it relates to the reason Brown was necessary in the first place. It was not primarily about integration; it was about equal educational opportunity. Integration was the only way to break the system back then. It’s pretty sad that, so many years later, it’s still the only option in so many areas - and I say that, again, liking very much the concept of integration.
Comment by Ray — June 29, 2007 @ 8:35 am
john f., without some sort of corrective mechanism that’s what would happen. Race-based quota systems may not be the only possible solution, and I’ve said as much. But yes — completely shutting down these programs for now means that black students will suffer while white students benefit. I am sure that in time each of the school boards involved will come up with some sort of alternative method to deal with the problem.
And yes, I personally believe that in order to remedy a past discrimination based on race, you need to look at what race was harmed and how, and give a remedy to the harmed race. That amounts to discrimination based on race (for a positive purpose), but it seems an obvious method to me to make up for racial harms.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 8:37 am
So Ray, you’d go with separate but equal as well?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 8:38 am
Ray,
Lets accept that you have profesional expertise in this area.
Long term question:
What is the impact on a school district that has a busing program?
Does it strengthen the district or does it in fact lead to more regional school segregation?
Comment by bbell — June 29, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Steve, if you care so much (#43) about the race of the commenter, perhaps we could get Clarence Thomas to drop by and leave a comment.
Comment by Bradley Ross — June 29, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Middle class white person definitely NOT happy with this decision.
Comment by kevinf — June 29, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Bradley - ha! Good point.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 9:44 am
All I know is, I spent way too much time on a school bus in the name of promoting “diversity” to disagree with this ruling. I heard the oral arguments on C-SPAN. It seemed to me that the school districts involved were grasping at straws, and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer’s hearts were in the right place but their view of American society is way out of date.
The school district I spent grades five through twelve in is in two pieces, eleven miles apart. The bussing order that led to its creation was lifted in 1995, but everyone’s been too afraid to do anything. Maybe now we can finally move forward.
Comment by John Taber — June 29, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Sorry Ray, my comment #50 was unfair.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Steve I find your #49 to be interesting considering that you are quite hard on the church for past (historical fact) and current (in your view) racial discrimination.
To hear that you favor discrimination seems hypocritical to say the least.
Comment by bbell — June 29, 2007 @ 11:26 am
I don’t believe justice is served by looking at what group of people were harmed by past mistakes, the perpetrators of which are dead and gone, and then harming individuals of another group to make up for it. I believe justice is served by treating individuals as individuals and not letting their race count against them. The remedy for injustice is justice, not more injustice.
It’s outrageous to dismiss the harm done to individuals by discriminating against them, as some justices and commentators have done, by saying that it pales in comparison to what happened to blacks under slavery. Yes, those sins were egregious, which is why we shouldn’t perpetrate them any more. We have to find ways to equalize opportunity without creating more victims of racial discrimination.
Steve,
I will thank you to not call me a rich white person again. I wouldn’t mind one day being one of those, but I never have been one. I’m the son of a janitor, thank you.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Tom, consider it a compliment — I am banking on your future earning potential. Now get out there and make it happen!
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 11:33 am
The school my wife teaches at is in one of the Eastside school districts, which are traditionally less diverse than the Seattle schools. Her junior high, however is one of the most diverse racially and economically in our district.
Her observation is that the black kids are pretty much completely integrated, although clearly still a minority. She sees no evidence of racial prejudice towards blacks. However, the largest minority population is Hispanic, and these students mix less with the other students, and occasionally are the target of unkind comments and actions.
Economic differences also seem to be a bigger issue than race. One concern her school has been trying to address is the lower involvement of parental support in the lower economic groups, presumably due to longer work hours, longer commutes, both parents working. What they have found is that when lower achieving students are placed in classes with higher achieving students, the standardized test performance for the lower students is increased markedly, while the higher achieving students performance is unaffected. This is also reflected in various national studies.
Like it or not, in her school, there is a higher ratio of minorities in the lower economic groups, and the lower performing groups. Considering equality of opportunity, those kids need to be in schools with the higher performing kids, which at least in Western Washington, runs along racial and economic boundaries. I fear that this court decision does indeed hold the potential of widening the gulf between the haves and the have-nots.
Comment by Kevinf — June 29, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Bradley: umm, wrong case dude. And the fact that Thomas is sitting on this court is one of the great ironies of the court’s decision. Roberts really had to have his head in the sand.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
bbell, that is a cheap shot. Deploring past discrimination does NOT require racially blind policies in the here and now. Where are all the defenders of affirmative action on this thread? Doesn’t anyone understand or appreciate the great positive good that those programs have accomplished for millions of disadvantaged minorities throughout our history (including a certain supreme court justice)? I’m appalled.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
For those interested, there’s a fairly good discussion of this at Slate.com.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
MCQ,
Discrimination is discrimination. Simple as that.
No matter how good the intentions are its still wrong.
I am going to remind you guys of this the next time we talk about OD2 and conditions in the church then and now. You are advocating discrimination in 2007 and have in my view lost some moral authority in discussing OD2
Comment by bbell — June 29, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
bbell: Remind away. The immoral thing, in my opinion, is to stick your head in the sand, hum halleluia, and pretend everything is okey dokey as long as you can say you are not discriminating. You are letting stand centuries of brutal discrimination without taking any affirmative steps to remedy it. Talk about immoral.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
MCQ,
You are currently advocating racial discrimination in 2007 and I am calling you guys on it. 2 wrongs do not make a right. They simply make 2 wrongs.
There is a reason why when affirmative action is put on ballot initiatives it loses. AKA California and Michigan. And why it was so easy for my friends and I at a University to file a lawsuit and have the school back down. Its because when you shine the light on Discrimination its ugly.
Comment by bbell — June 29, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Simmer down, folks. Bbell, if you want to label people hypocrites and worse, feel free to go elsewhere and do it for the rest of your life.
MCQ, similarly it’s not too helpful to overinflate bbell’s anti-affirmative action stance as being utterly immoral. I agree with your view that it is not hypocrisy to remedy past discrimination with affirmative action, but bbell’s claims (and his lawsuits) are so flimsy that they aren’t worth addressing.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Kevinf,
Your comment supports economics-based integration programs more than race-based ones. According to my understanding, economics-based programs are not constitutionally suspect. Plus, as I’ve mentioned before, they help the disadvantaged of all races. So I see in these decisions reason to be hopeful that people will start paying attention to what matters most and truly begin to equalize opportunity by addressing economic factors.
I’m sure that affirmative action has helped many individuals from minority groups. But it has done so at the expense of justice. Not that that alone makes affirmative action necessarily bad—sometimes benefits can justify costs—but it is a fact that its proponents don’t seem to want to deal with. In my view, the benefits do not justify the costs borne by innocent individuals, but some reasonable people see affirmative action as a necessary evil, like chemotherapy for cancer patients. That’s a position I can respect even though I disagree. What I can’t respect is the failure to acknowledge and bemoan the heavy cost of race-based affirmative action. Not that I think you’ve done this, but in these debates the costs are far too often dismissed as whining by supposedly privileged white males.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
bbell: What’s ugly is your complete oversimplification of this issue. Taking race into account as a factor in admissions in college admissions and in federal contracts has a long history and is in current practice today. Don’t believe me? Ask the OFCCP, a federal agency whose sole job is enforcement of rules supporting minority preferences in federal contracts and employment. Affirmative Action is alive and well and supported by federal law, your anecdotal lawsuit notwithstanding. Look it up, bbell.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
First, let me restate that I like the ideal of integration. I didn’t go back and count, but I believe I made that point explicit in every one of my comments. I wish racial discrimination did not exist, and actual integration has done as much as anything else to dispel ignorant stereotypes and biases.
To bbell’s questions: What is the impact on a school district that has a busing program?
Both good and bad - and unmeasurable in many ways. Good in the long term for racial integration; bad financially, as busing is extremely expensive - and every dollar you spend on busing can’t be spent on instructional technology, teacher salaries, bonus incentives, etc.; good academically for most minority students bused to good schools; bad or indifferent academically for many non-minority students bused to bad schools; bad academically for minority students in bad schools who lose their place in advanced classes to the majority students bused to those schools; totally dependent on the infra-structure of each individual school.
Does it strengthen the district or does it in fact lead to more regional school segregation? Yes, generally, and yes, often.
Again, I say bus or don’t bus - but, if you do it, stop doing it in such a tepid way. If you want racial and socio-economic equality, create it. Frankly, it won’t happen in most districts simply because it’s too expensive to do without sacrificing some other program designed to help underprivileged kids.
There is only way way, IMO, to address educational equality. As an initial step, I accept busing, but that is the wrong focus for a long-term effort. Busing admits inequality; therefore, the LEGAL solution should be to bus until the inequality is fixed. If social considerations justify the expense of continued busing after equality is achieved, fine; if not, fine. My sadness is in the fact that we still HAVE to bus so many years after Brown.
Again, I want color-blind education, but this is a FAR more complicated issue than most narrow discussions make it out to be. I want equal education to mean that every single student is offered the opportunity to receive a minimally acceptable education regardless of race, gender, socio-economic status or any other condition out of their control. My main point is that accomplishing such an objective will require considering ALL options, including what the vast majority of minority parents and students want - to be educated as close to home as possible in a school that has as strong an infrastructure as the others in the district, no matter the demographic distribution of its student body. That is true equality, IMHO.
Comment by Ray — June 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Tom: “in these debates the costs are far too often dismissed as whining by supposedly privileged white males.”
As the case may be, this debate has nothing but that (factoring in your awesome future earning potential, Tom). I think I’ve been careful from the beginning to be honest about the costs of race-based initiatives, so give me some credit.
BTW, economic-based reforms can be constitutionally-suspect as well, Tom. They’re just not scrutinized in the same way as race-based programs.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Steve: the problem is that other people read this and might be convinced by that argument! I think it has to be addressed.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
MCQ, fair enough. I can’t imagine anyone reading this thread and getting convinced by bbell, but just because it’s never happened to me doesn’t mean it couldn’t ever happen, I guess. Let’s just try to be civil. Yes, I’m a hypocrite for saying this.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
The Court has previously held, if I recall correctly, that there was some latitude for special circumstances regarding the redress of past wrongs, but not being an attorney, I’m certain I’ll never find it.
bbell, when a past wrong is ended, at that point in time, even though all opportunities and choices are supposed to be equal going forward, you still have a class of suppressed individuals who are starting at a lower level. “Separate but equal” only worked because when students weren’t actually sitting side by side, you couldn’t really tell if they were equal. Or to put it another way, hypothetically, if due to previous discrimination against me as a wage earner I am suddenly given equal opportunity, I may still qualify for less of a home loan than you as a member of a privileged class. Therefore, my opportunity, although now officially “equal”, still starts at a lower point.
Affirmative action was meant to address the defacto inequalities after the legal inequalities were removed. Therefore, many blacks were given a hand up by affirmative action, in admission to colleges, in hiring practices, in granting of government contracts. Justice Thomas certainly should be recognized for hard work and effort, but he is also a beneficiary of the Brown vs Board decision.
We have a long tradition of rewarding sacrifice and granting special privileges, ie the GI Bill after WW II, special consideration for Gulf War and Iraq veterans, displaced Katrina victims, and others. I think the key difference here is that these school districts were trying to prevent segregation based on economic and racial divides, which is interpreted by some in the majority, privileged classes as discrimination against them. Did I also point out that Seattle also has (or had, at my last check) a very high percentage of students attending private schools. These are primarily middle and upper class families sending their kids to private schools because they can afford to.
I plan on wearing my Thurgood Marshall commemorative stamp lapel pin on my suit Sunday, that I bought on the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision.
Comment by kevinf — June 29, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Steve #71,
I didn’t have you in mind, though since you did talk about rich white guys I’m sure it sounded like I was talking about you. Sorry. I hereby give you credit for acknowledging the costs of affirmative action.
I was thinking more generally.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
I should add that the only way to evaluate the effectiveness of schools in a truly objective way is to create the kind of demographically identical schools I mentioned earlier. Otherwise, there are WAY too many variables (most notably preparation prior to entrance into formal education and inherent ability) to judge performance objectively. I hate No Child Left Behind - NOT because I disagree with the foundational ideal, but because the evaluative paradigm is so screwed up it becomes part of the problem.
Comment by Ray — June 29, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Steve,
Are the constitutional problems with economics-based affirmative action similar to the race-based ones? Is it that discirimination on the basis of economic factors may violate equal protection?
In that Slate conversation (which I have been following intently, and which is excellent), Stuart Taylor calls economics based programs “unassailable,” as I recall. Are they in fact just mostly unassailable?
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Off to glory in a truly spiritual experience: the Cincinnati Pops performing with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. You can’t get much closer to heaven than that! I will not think of this discussion once while I am gone, as much as I enjoy it.
Comment by Ray — June 29, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Tom, that’s right. “Mostly” unassailable, like “mostly dead.” They can be overturned if the economics can be shown as just some sort of smokescreen for some other intent. But no, the constitutional problems for race vs. economics are not the same at all. The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to economic disparities.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
And dangit, it’s not whining to point out injustice and call it injustice.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Kevin it’s actually worse than that. Separate but equal was such a travesty partly because it was never equal. Not even close. If the majority forces minority people into a ghetto, a ghetto it will be.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Tom, are you admitting you’re rich?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Steve,
That’s a funny question, because after living in Brazil and Baltimore I have a hard time entirely disavowing that label, despite my family’s situation, and despite my earlier joking objection to your “rich white folks” comment.
BTW, this Slate article from today argues that economics-based programs are showing promise.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Tom, I agree — and I think Slate’s coverage on this has been great. I think we have to learn to love economics-based programs because it’s clear that race-based ones are dead before the Roberts Court.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Kevinf: . . . segregation based on economic and racial divides, which is interpreted by some in the majority, privileged classes as discrimination against them.
Race-based affirmative action is racial discrimination, by definition. It always, inevitably, results in individuals being denied benefits because of their race. It might not always lead to oppression of the cost-bearing group as a whole (and, incidentally, it also might not always lead to lifting up of the targeted group as a whole), but it always causes harm to individuals. The question is how much harm to individuals is justifiable. That’s a hard question.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
You might find this short essay interesting–written in 1955 by Zora Neale Hurston. She was a very popular black author in the 1930’s and an outspoken critic of Brown v. Board of Education. I especially like this: “It is a contradiction in terms to scream race pride and equality while at the same time spurning Negro teachers and self-association.”
Comment by prairie chuck — June 29, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Tom: only if you define “discrimination” in it’s broadest terms. Some would argue that it’s never possible to “discriminate” (in the pejorative sense of the word) against a person who is in the racial and economic majority. I’m not advocating that definition, but your comment seems to disregard that argument without even considering it.
Also, how do you define “harm?”
Let’s say that I’m a university, and my admissions policy is that, in order to meet a goal of improving racial diversity in my student population (a goal that most universities see as a positive and work affirmatively toward) I will prefer racial minorities to non-racial minorities whenever they are competing for the same admissions spot and all other factors are equal.
In other words, no matter what you do, one of the applicants is going to be “harmed” in that they will not get admitted. Is it “harming” the non-minority candidate to use race as a factor to break the tie?
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
pc: that essay is a gas, but it’s a red herring in this argument.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
RE Tom, # 85
You are right in the sense that there is a cost, borne by individuals, but individuals who in a parallel setting still have the advantage of being part of the privileged majority.
I think of this somewhat in terms of grace. Is it okay for me, in my otherwise privileged situation, to have to sacrifice for someone with less advantage, and a more difficult past? In other words, if I as a white male get turned down for admission to law school at a university, there are still dozens, if not hundreds of others that I can apply to. However, if I have been the victim of an inferior education and economic circumstances through no fault of my own, will my chances be improved at any other institution? I suspect not.
My first choice of a career in broadcast journalism was effectively derailed by affirmative action (there were darn few opportunities for white male broadcasters to break in during the 70’s, unless you were a former jock wanting to be a sportscaster), but I don’t regret that for a minute, especially when I see that the exposure given to minorities because of affirmative action has only helped to defuse some of the racism we see in this country.
We still have a ways to go, IMO.
Comment by kevinf — June 29, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
. . . only if you define “discrimination†in it’s broadest terms. Some would argue that it’s never possible to “discriminate†(in the pejorative sense of the word) against a person who is in the racial and economic majority. I’m not advocating that definition, but your comment seems to disregard that argument without even considering it.
I’ve heard that argument and I don’t have any respect for it. If I make black individuals sit at the back of the bus because they’re black, I’m discriminating against those individuals on the basis of their race. If I make white people sit at the back of the bus because they’re white, I’m discriminating against those individuals on the basis of their race.
Harm is a tricky word because it’s not always easy to point to tangible harm done by every instance of racial discrimination. It’s not that big of a deal to ride at the back of the bus. You’re sitting down just like the people at the front and you get to go where you want to go. But I believe humans have the right to be treated fairly without regard to their race (isn’t that what the 14th amendment says?), and making someone sit at the back of the bus because he or she is or is not of a certain race violates that right. That violation of one’s rights as a human is a soft harm, but I consider it a harm nonetheless, no matter what color the victim is.
I will grant that systematic discrimination against the majority race is not indistinguishable from systematic discrimination against a minority race. Systematic discrimination against members of the racial majority doesn’t make all members of that race second-class citizens as does systematic discrimination against members of a racial minority. But it does violate the rights of individuals. And it has the potential to perpetuate economic injustice and create an underclass by neglecting the disadvantaged members of the racial majority.
In the case of race-based affirmative action for college admissions, the harm is in both soft and tangible senses. Denial of admission to an individual because of his or her race violates that individual’s right to not have their race count against them and it compromises his or her ability to earn a livelihood.
The tangible harm to the plaintiffs in the Seattle and Louisville cases was being forced to commute many hours every day to attend school because they were the wrong color to attend schools more near. If that’s not an example of race-based discrimination causing harm to individuals, I don’t know what is.
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Kevinf,
Your second paragraph is another one that supports economic affirmative action. There are many white and Asian children who received a terrible education and come from rotten economic circumstances through no fault of their own. Being members of the “privileged” majority hasn’t done them any good. Why should kids from that kind of background have their race count against them when they apply for law school?
I appreciate what you say about the benefits of having high-achieving minorities in terms of defusing some racial tension, but I’m not sure that affirmative action has, on balance, been a good thing for race relations in this country. The gains in that arena may have been offset by the animosity and suspicion it has engendered. But who knows?
Comment by Tom — June 29, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
In a perfect world we wouldn’t need affirmative action. But it isn’t a perfect world. I’ve worked for companies that if it weren’t for affrimitive action would probably be entirely white. So some measure must be taken.
Affirmative action isn’t the perfect solution by far. But what are the alternatives that its opponents support? Do nothing? We’ve done that before. Guess what? It worked worse than affirmative action.
Comment by ronito — June 29, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Like many of you seem to have done, I am pondering the moral and practical issues with more immediate interest than the legal ones. I began educating my children in Houston, finished in Seattle. Seattle bused the kids and sent the majority of families out of the city. Houston bused the teachers. The majority of families still fled. We fled too, into private school, though we started 3 of our children in public school even though the sibling ahead of each had been moved to private school. We kept trying, in different public schools. The most shocking moment came as a principal explained to me that my son spent most of his day flicking dust in the light beams because the teacher was so overwhelmed with the other 13 (that’s right, just 13) in the class. The principal advised me to get him out as fast as I could. I was volunteering in the library; my husband was teaching science classes as a volunteer. We were trying.
But we would have sacrificed the intellectual, social and emotional development of our children for the single goal of diversity. It was too high a price. We set about finding other ways to teach interracial appreciation–like putting 2 boys on all black ball teams. That’s another story.
Our isolated experience and a little reading have convinced me families, children and neighborhoods have suffered greatly with the demise of the neighborhood school. Economic affirmative action seems to have all the same downfalls as racial affirmative action. It will start with a bus. Everyone is less connected; people don’t get to know their neighbors at PTA; kids don’t do sports or drama or music after school when they have to catch the bus. Without the breadth and depth of school activities and ties and friends, kids treat school like a job. Too many go, do the minimum and get out by 1 so they can hold a job and buy clothes and fun and cars and ipods.
Affirmative action or do nothing? No. Neither has been a success. We must equalize the resources spent on schools, pay teachers market wages (to me that means that math and science teachers must get more (because they can in the private sector) and merit pay has to come).
Simultaneously we must change teacher education radically.
Too much of it is a joke and has been for 50 years. I say that as someone who once spent too much time at the UW education department as I did a fifth year to get a teaching certificate before choosing law over education.
We must get lots closer to loving every child as our Parents do, equalizing opportunity and resources and letting parents make more of the decisions. I just can’t get too concerned about the recent decision. The answers weren’t in affirmative action and they aren’t in its demise. The answers are in our collective will to prepare a generation to realize their potential. Of course, I pontificate knowing there are so many stakeholders who will be hurt and so many political parts to come together that I am not very hopeful. But this decision doesn’t seem critical to me one way or another.
Comment by Molly Bennion — June 29, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
MCQ,
Why are you assuming that I am not familiar with federal law and current corporate and government affirmative action programs?
I am essentially saying that they in fact are violations of a plain reading of the 14th amendment.
Put it to a vote in state near you and watch affirmative action voted down by 10 point margins or so.
Watch this new alignment on the court go one step further then last time with the U of M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I support Brown based on a plain reading of the 14th amendment and see this ruling and further potential SCOTUS rulings as continuations of Brown.
Comment by bbell — June 29, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
That’s a very thoughtful comment Molly.
bbell you make me tired.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Molly–May I sound a very loud second to your call for a change in teacher education. For thirty-five years, I saw young women (very few young men; that’s another issue) come in as college freshmen, fired up about teaching elementary or high school. By the end of the sophomore year, most of them had changed majors; by the end of the junior year, even more. I admit that these were students I saw in my English classes, but these courses included freshman English and many Honors classes, which enroll students across all majors. I think of three astounding young women from a single class towards the end of my years of teaching. Each wanted to teach; each would have made an unforgettable teacher. And all three, despite efforts to stay the dubious course, decided they had to change majors to keep their sanity. I salute all those who DID stay the course and DO teach now, despite the flaws in the teacher-ed system, but it’s long past time for a change.
Comment by Elouise — June 29, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
I wish we could get over the whole race thing. Just let it go. I grew up in the South. It seems like we keep taking steps backwards rather than forwards to keep someone’s agenda alive. All sides just need to declare “we’re over it” and move on.
Comment by StillConfused — June 29, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Molly, thank you. That is precisely the type of thing I was describing in my comments - a focus on truly equalizing the education / instruction / opportunity so that people can have what they want - neighborhood schools that contribute to the community and don’t just house classrooms. In schools, the primary focus should be on creating truly equal education regardless of demographics; a secondary focus might be racial integration, but it should be tackled after the primary reason for schools is addressed first.
Comment by Ray — June 29, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
I love Molly’s comment. While I do believe that economic affirmative action would be a moral, legal, and effective way to increase diversity, I don’t believe that diversity is a panacea. I would like to see implemented the suggestions that Molly and Ray put forth, especially merit-based pay for teachers and better pay overall.
But even with those changes, I’m sorry to say that I’m not very hopeful that we can close the opportunity gap for the economically disadvantaged. The single most important key to kids’ educational success is parental support and involvement, which for many reasons is lacking. I don’t know how we as society can replace parenting. We’ve got to give these kids the best chance we can, though.
Comment by Tom — June 30, 2007 @ 8:12 am
#88 pc: that essay is a gas, but it’s a red herring in this argument.
No, not really. The title of this thread is Brown V. Board of Education is Dead. This article shows that it Brown v. had serious problems from the get go. Even blacks were not happy with it. Maybe we shouldn’t mourn its demise.
Comment by prairie chuck — June 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
One more point: I don’t want the results of education to be equalized. The only way to do that would be to lower the result to match the abilities of the low-average students. There are real and broad differences in cognitive ability among students, particularly when multiple curricular areas are considered.
I want equality of opportunity and access. I want objective, professional standards for all teachers in all schools - so all students can be taught by good, qualified teachers; I want long-term assignments for principals - long enough to implement innovation and evaluate results; I want district-wide curricular consistency that minimizes the academic trauma of changing schools; I want small enough classes that a teacher can identify individual learning modalities and teach the same concept in multiple ways; I want a teacher to make enough money to support a family as a single wage earner - but not enough that people who don’t care about the kids will want to teach just for the money; I want technology to be integrated into instruction seamlessly - no more “computer lab” trips and classes on how to use Microsoft Word for students who can navigate the internet better than their teachers; I want computer training classes for teachers taught by students; and on and on and on.
I want racial integration very much, and education can play a role in that effort, but I want education to succeed educationally first and foremost. Do I have much hope in seeing this happen in my lifetime? No. However, I believe that you can’t achieve the ideal unless you are able to articulate the ideal first - and that the purpose of anything should be to come as close to the ideal as possible.
Comment by Ray — June 30, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
There’s probably no way to quantify the number of families who didn’t move to Louisville and Seattle (or who left) because of the schools.
Sometimes, decisions made to benefit a system have a negative impact on the individual components of that system.
I grew up in an area where the predominant school system was ripped apart by forced busing. Most families fled, or never moved there (my parents fell into the latter case) — opting for small suburban school districts where they could still control school choice.
Or as my professor father not-so-nicely put it — having a nicely desegregated school district would have grossly impacted his children’s chance to go to a good college.
So where’s the line between diversity and equal access and sabotaging your own family?
Comment by queuno — July 2, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
queuno: I’m not sure I understand the connection between desegregation and going to a good college. Are you saying that desegregation cmprmises th quality of the education in schools? Why would that be? Presumably, the teachers and the curriculum are the same whether the school is desegregated or not.
Comment by MCQ — July 3, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
(Hate to reopen a closed thread, but I never responded to MCQ.)
When my parents were looking at places to live in “the big city” near by dad’s employment, they were told that we’d be bused to schools in different parts of the city as part of the deseg order, and that we might not all go to the same school. The additional hours imposed by busing meant that a lot of children could not participate in extracurricular activities, mutual activities, etc. — some of the kids they knew had hour-long bus rides in the a.m. and in the p.m.
My parents, because they could afford to, decided to settle in a nice suburb with a total area of about 8 square miles, where the schools were excellent. I can’t count the number of classmates I had whose parents moved from the bit city to our suburb as soon as they could afford to. The schools in the big, desegrated city were HORRIBLE. Absolutely HORRIBLE. The flight of anyone reasonably properous to the suburbs still haunts that city 35, 40 years later. The Church itself has been affected by everyone who left.
So yes - “forced” desegration can compromise the quality of the education in a school, when it splits up families and forces them to attend schools a lot further away than they would have normally attended.
My parents weren’t racist in their thinking — they were two professional educators who surveyed the quality of the options, opted to avoid forced desegration, and opted for smaller, suburban schools (in a suburb they struggled to afford). Some 30-odd years later, I’m glad they did.
Comment by queuno — July 14, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Thanks for the answer queuno.
It is almost a cliche that inner city schools have become a disaster. But is it the fault of desegregation? Let’s make sure we’re putting the blame where it really belongs. I suspect busing to accomplish desegregation is just one of symptoms, not the cause of the disease.
Comment by MCQ — July 14, 2007 @ 10:03 pm