Integrating Public Schools Not a Legitimate State Interest Says Roberts Court

In a another 5-4 decision (Justice Kennedy did not join the plurality opinion, only the judgment, more on that later), the new Roberts Supreme Court, throwing away claims of judicial minimalism and any claims to respect for federalism, today ruled unlawful two VOLUNTARY school integration plans. Justice Stevens, in dissent, wrote:

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, 349 U. S. 294 (1955). 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.. Ante, at 40. 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.2 In this and other ways, THE CHIEF JUSTICE rewrites the history of one of this Court's most important decisions. Compare ante, at 39 (history will be heard.), with Brewer v. Quarterman, 550 U. S. ___,___ (2007) (slip op., at 11) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (It is a familiar adage that history is written by the victors.)

Justice Breyer's dissent argues that:

These cases consider the longstanding efforts of two local school boards to integrate their public schools. The school board plans before us resemble many others adopted in the last 50 years by primary and secondary schools throughout the Nation. All of those plans represent local efforts to bring about the kind of racially integrated education that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), long ago promised, efforts that this Court has repeatedly required, permitted, and encouraged local authorities to undertake. This Court has recognized that the public interests at stake in such cases are compelling. We have approved of narrowly tailored plans that are no less race-conscious than the plans before us. And we have understood that the Constitution permits local communities to adopt desegregation plans even where it does not require them to do so.

The plurality pays inadequate attention to this law, to past opinions, rationales, their language, and the contexts in which they arise. As a result, it reverses course and reaches the wrong conclusion. In doing so, it distorts precedent, it misapplies the relevant constitutional principles, it announces legal rules that will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools, it threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation, and it undermines Brown's promise of integrated primary and secondary education that local communities have sought to make a reality. This cannot be justified in the name of the Equal Protection Clause.
. . . [I]n respect to race-conscious desegregation measures that the Constitution
permitted, but did not require (measures similar tothose at issue here), this Court unanimously stated:

School authorities are traditionally charged with broad power to formulate and implement educational policy and might well conclude, for example, that in order to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society each school should have a prescribed ratio of Negro to white students reflecting the proportion for the district as a whole. To do this as an educational policy is within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 16 (1971) As a result, different districts, some acting under court decree, some acting in order to avoid threatened lawsuits, some seeking to comply with federal administrative orders, some acting purely voluntarily, some acting after federal courts had dissolved earlier orders, adopted, modified, and experimented with hosts of different kinds of plans, including race-conscious plans, all with a similar objective: greater racial integration of public schools. See F. Welch & A. Light, New Evidence on School Desegregation (1987) (hereinafter Welch) (prepared for the Commission on Civil Rights) (reviewing a sample of 125 school districts, constituting 20% of national public school enrollment, that had experimented with nearly 300 different plans over 18 years). The techniques that different districts have employed range from voluntary transfer programs to mandatory reassignment. Id., at 21.

. . . The upshot is that myriad school districts operating in myriad circumstances have devised myriad plans, often with race-conscious elements, all for the sake of eradicating earlier school segregation, bringing about integration, or preventing retrogression. Seattle and Louisville are two such districts, and the histories of their present plans set forth typical school integration stories.

I describe those histories at length in order to highlight three important features of these cases. First, the school districts plans serve compelling interests and are narrowly tailored on any reasonable definition of those terms. Second, the distinction between de jure segregation(caused by school systems) and de facto segregation(caused, e.g., by housing patterns or generalized societal discrimination) is meaningless in the present context, thereby dooming the plurality's endeavor to find support for its views in that distinction. Third, real-world efforts to substitute racially diverse for racially segregated schools (however caused) are complex, to the point where the Constitution cannot plausibly be interpreted to rule out categorically all local efforts to use means that are conscious of the race of individuals.

. . . A longstanding and unbroken line of legal authority tells us that the Equal Protection Clause permits local school boards to use race-conscious criteria to achieve positive race-related goals, even when the Constitution does not compel it. . . . [T]he Court set forth in Swann a basic principle of constitutional law, a principle of law that has found wide acceptance in the legal culture. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); Mitchell v. United States, 526 U. S. 314, 330 (1999); id., at 331, 332 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (citing wide acceptance in the legal culture as adequate reason not to overrule prior cases).

Thus, in North Carolina Bd. of Ed. v. Swann, 402 U. S. 43, 45 (1971), this Court, citing Swann, restated the point. [S]chool authorities, the Court said, have wide discretion in formulating school policy, and . . . as a matter of educational policy school authorities may well conclude that some kind of racial balance in the schools is desirable quite apart from any constitutional requirements. Then-Justice Rehnquist echoed this view in Bustop, Inc. v. Los
Angeles Bd. of Ed., 439 U. S. 1380, 1383 (1978) (opinion inchambers), making clear that he too believed that Swann's statement reflected settled law: While I have the gravest doubts that [a state supreme court] was required by the
United States Constitution to take the [desegregation]action that it has taken in this case, I have very little doubt that it was permitted by that Constitution to take
such action. . . .

The law of the case is, ostensibly, Justice Kennedy's opinion:

In the administration of public schools by the state and local authorities it is permissible to consider the racial makeup of schools and to adopt general policies to encourage a diverse student body, one aspect of which is its racial composition. Cf. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003); id., at 387.388 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting). If school authorities are concerned that the student-body compositions of certain schools interfere with the objective of offering an equal educational opportunity to all of their students, they are free to devise race-conscious measures to address the problem in a general way and without treating each student in different fashion solely on the basis of a systematic, individual typing by race.

School boards may pursue the goal of bringing together students of diverse backgrounds and races through other means, including strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones with general recognition of thedemographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race. These mechanisms are race conscious but do not lead to different treatment based on a classification that tells each student he or she is to be defined by race, so it is unlikely any of them would demand strict scrutiny to be found permissible. See Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 958 (1996) (plurality opinion) (Strict scrutiny does not apply merely because redistricting is performed with consciousness of race. . . . Electoral district lines are facially race neutral, so a more searching inquiry is necessary before strict scrutiny can be found applicable in redistricting cases than in cases of classifications based explicitly on race.(quoting Adarand, 515 U. S., at 213)).

Executive and legislative branches, which for generations now have considered these types of policies and procedures, should be permitted to employ them with candor and with confidence that a constitutional violation does not occur whenever a decisionmaker considers the impact a given approach might have on students of different
races. Assigning to each student a personal designation according to a crude system of individual racial classifications is quite a different matter; and the legal analysis changes accordingly.

What Kennedy is saying is not at all easy to discern or to make logic of frankly.

Suffice it to say, my quick interpretation is Kennedy is for allowing for race conscious policies except those that might work. A more thorough review of all of this is necessary and I will try to have something more in depth tomorrow.

< White House Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenaed Documents | Senate Kills Immigration Reform Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Roberts argument... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    ...is akin to David Duke defending of his National Association for the Advancement of White People as a legitimate organization in light of the NAACP's existence.  As Stevens points out, Roberts creates (as Duke did just as fraudulently) a history that never existed in order to justify a present day that he also sought to, and did, recreate.  White folks, indeed, were never clamoring to get into black schools; anymore than white folks were being lynched.  This decision stands on the same ground as the logic that founded the NAAWP.

    The Devolution of the United States (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Aaron on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    It's terrifying that some Americans don't recognize how significant and frightening this decision is for the future of America.  The Supreme Court has basically undertaken to begin reversing school integration, next will begin seeing exclusively white, exclusively male, schools cropping up around the country, schools that will begin denying access to minorities, women, gays etc. charter schools who currently disguised themselves as public schools will begin to exclude anyone on any basis whatsoever, social class income levels you name it, while the public school system that provides free education for the rest of our children will be dismantled.  Very soon it will all be up for grabs once again.  Eight years of the Bush has in essence effectively demolished 50 years of progress in this country on a number of fronts.

    The Roberts court, and John Roberts specifically are real threat to the future of the United States of America, not a fake manufactured threat like Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, I'm talking the demise of democracy as we know it, as our parents knew it, and as the forefathers envisioned this country.

    It's becoming abundantly clear that John Roberts is one of those Catholics that feel their historical plight in America is somehow equivalent to the plight of African-Americans, that is an extremely distorted perspective held only by Catholic social conservatives who are quite obviously unable to empathize with anyone else's suffering but their own.  I've got Catholics like that in my family and have always found their positions laughable, until now.  It seems obvious that Roberts is someone who feels that Christianity and certain segments of Christianity like Catholicism are having the rights trampled upon by these upstart minorities who want to pollute our society with their alien unfamiliar ways, and turn our fine land of white Christians, black and brown with their race mixing ways, that's been their plan all along to do away with white people by make little multiracial religiously ambiguous children with our blonde virginal daughters, and the white folks are rising up to assert their dominance once again. Real sick puppy stuff.

    This is no joke people, the United States of America is slipping away right before our eyes, devolving back into some paradise for the racist, sexist, Neanderthals among us, and the highest court in the land is now their weapon of choice.  This must be stopped, at any cost, by any means necessary. The alternative is simply too monstrous to contemplate.

    The new WMD...SCOTUS (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Electa on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:34:27 PM EST
    Roberts swore under oath that he would respect precedence.  I'm not a lawyer but what that meant to me was that SCOTUS upholdings such as Roe v Wade, Brown and the like would remain sacred grounds.  Looks like he was fibbing under oath.  A man is known by his works more so than his words.  Can members of the high court be impeached?  Is lying during a confirmation process an impeachable offense?  If so, maybe a movement needs be underway.  Can you imagine the effects this ruling will have on school districts across the country?!?!?! Look!!!! Isn't that Jim Crow coming down the street?

    In 1965, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    a year after the Civil Rights Act passed, I was a grade 8 student at Williamsburg Junior High, Arlington, VA. The school had about 1500 white children. That was the year they started to integrate the school. The way they did it was to enroll 4 black children. 2 boys, 2 girls.

    They lasted about a week, if my memory is correct. That was as long as they could put up with being punched, kicked, sworn at, beaten up, spit on and having books thrown at them in the hallways between periods.

    Some days, since 2001, it's obvious people are trying to resurrect the mindset that was so widespread in those years.

    What are they so terrified of?

    In 1975, (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:03:07 PM EST
    when I started HS, white kids got the same treatment from blacks if they didn't know enough not to use the "blacks only" staircases at Morristown (NJ) HS.

    Poor Baby (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    Guess they deserve to be oppressed then.  How dare they act so uppity.
    Wonder if the KKK used the same type of justification to hang em by the dozen.

    What a Coincidence (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    Must be something in the air. I just read digby and she fleshes out the issue of the same type of discrimination you are suffering from:

    This is yet another chapter of the endless American soap opera called "As The Racist Turns" in which a scrappy but put-upon white minority has been egregiously discriminated against for years and they are not going to take it any more. George Will wrote just the other day that the white conservative southern followers of George Wallace were an "aggrieved minority," so perhaps Parker should reconsider her stance and simply lobby to have southern, white conservatives fall under the rubric of the hate crimes laws themselves. Then maybe they wouldn't be so upset about not being as "special." There's nothing more delicate than the tender feelings of racist hate mongers. The least we can do is treat them with the sensitivity and sympathy they deserve.



    And that surprises you? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    Actually, yes, it did. (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:36:05 PM EST
    All the black kids I went to grammar school with were great. HS did suprise me.

    Nice deke there sarc. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    Let someone else catch the point?

    I have no clue what you're trying to say. (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:51:17 PM EST
    What's a deke?

    A sidestep (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    an evasion... a deke:
    deked, dek·ing, dekes
    To deceive (an opponent) in ice hockey by a fake: deked the goalie with a move from left to right.

    OK. How 'bout the rest? (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    What does "let someone else catch the point" mean?

    C'mon sarc... jeeze (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    Start back here. You don't really think there is equivalence.

    Wow. It still makes no sense to me. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    This is a written medium, not a chit chat in your living room. Maybe - if actual communication is your goal - you could rely less on foggy idioms?

    Anyway...equivalence? On what planet did I claim that?

    You chose to regale us with a personal anecdote. I relied with one of mine.

    That it doesn't fit neatly into your metanarrative is not my concern.


    Mmmmm. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:41:43 PM EST

    If you say so. (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    It's the same tired song... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:21:31 PM EST
    ...I've been hearing from those who are either unable or perhaps more commonly unwilling to understand what it means to be Black in America.  They always say why can't these black people get over it, they've got equal rights, which many white folks in America have been duped into believing are special rights, when they hear about these efforts to integrate, and programs like affirmative action.  But no one ever seems to want to talk about the price that African Americans paid for centuries in this country, and the price they continued to pay throughout the last century just so they could vote and get a decent education, and have the right to compete fairly with everyone else in this country.  They've paid their dues so many times that it would take volumes of books to list them, but for some like John Roberts and Clarence Thomas it seems so easy to forget.  In Clarence's case I imagine that he has gone to great pains in order to make himself forget.

    Last night I was reminded of one incident in particular, while I was surfing through the cable channels and fell upon Spike Lee's documentary from 1997, an incident that related directly to segregation and integration.  Those four little girls at the 16th St Baptist Church back in 1963 who got themselves blown apart and splattered all over the walls, their friends and family having to collect the pieces and turn them over to a mortician for reconstruction, so that the congregation could say goodbye to them one last time.  It reminded me of what happens in Iraq on a daily basis.

    After that bombing in 63, much of white America finally took notice, finally began to understand how important this issue was.  But now the sensibilities and hearts of Americans have been deadened by years of war, a war removed from our shores where the responsibility for the bodies of hundreds of thousands of children lie at our feet and on our conscience.  It seems it's easy for some, specifically those on the Supreme Court, to forget and even cast aside the sacrifice that African Americans made for their right to equal opportunity in this country.  Our nation is becoming hard and pitiless in the face of war, a common phenomenon for nations, a malady for which we are quite obviously not immune.

     Time to hunker down and protect your own, and forget everyone who can be conveniently classified as the unknowable Other.  This is the price we as a people are beginning to pay for perpetuating war, our ability to empathize and feel is slowly being worn down.  Already we begin to turn on our own, and it's only going to get worse.  It's all connected people, just like we are all connected, the moment we forget that is the moment that our society begins to disintegrate.

    The results of this decision by the Roberts Court will reverberate for years to come, with the greatest harm initially being most visible in the Black communities of America, but the damage will surely spread.  

    Recent statistics show that the median income for a white family in this country is a little over $50,000, while the median family income for the average Black family is around $30,000, that's a huge disparity, one that few white Americans seem interested in addressing.  Other problems like those described in a study released by the University of Pittsburgh's Center on Race and Social Problems, will continue to grow and widen, thanks to the Bush administration's policies and George W. Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court which led directly to this tragic reversal of more than 50 years of progress.

    Those of you who are not yet afraid in light of these events, just give it a little time, I promise you, you will be.

    Poverty worst here for black residents

    Aaron (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    that's a huge disparity

    Okay, what would you suggest as a way to overcome the problem?


    This For a Start (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:23:44 PM EST
    Truth & Reconciliation, Part I: Reconciling the Wounds of Lynching

    DeFacto? (2.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jarober on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    "Second, the distinction between de jure segregation(caused by school systems) and de facto segregation(caused, e.g., by housing patterns or generalized societal discrimination) is meaningless in the present context"

    Well, there's enough baggage hiding there for a large truck convoy.  If I buy a house based on the school district the house is in (and believe me, parents make housing decisions based on that), and then later find out that no - the state has decided to send my children X miles to a district further over (and in an area I decided not to live in when looking for a house, based on the quality of the school district), then I have a reason to be angry.  Heck, parents get upset about redistricting period, whether it has anything to do with race or economics or school quality - continuity in a child's school life is seen as important, especially as they advance in grade.

    What the minority on the court wants is to tell parents to just stuff it - the experts know better than you, and important decisions you made on your housing should be able to be countermanded at will.

    In the real world, taxpaying parents dislike that, a lot.  And it has less to do with race than you would like to imagine it does.

    What an amazing comment (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    The Court overrules a LOCAL School Board decision and YOU decide to complain about Court interference by the MINORITY?

    Honestly, this is truly one the most disconnected comments I have ever read.

    Herre's a clue, PARENTS elect school board members.


    Since When? (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Fritz on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    Have liberals ever paid deference to local school boards?  

    The Dixiecrats rise again. n/t (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:29:44 AM EST

    I guess I don't know enough (none / 0) (#2)
    by libertarian soldier on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    Because as a simple infantryman, it does seem easy to discern--in the interest of diversity race can be taken into account, but diversity is not a result of race alone, and defining anyone by race alone is discriminatory.
    On the one hand, I agree with you that on federalism grounds the school boards actions should be allowed.  On the other hand, where would that leave the Brown decision?

    I am SURE (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    the decision does NOT say that.

    Not even close.


    Where does that leave thr Brown decision (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    THIS decision eviscerates Brown and Brown II.

    Swann and all of Brown's progeny.

    It amazes me sometimes the things I read from folks.


    BTD, I'm anxious (none / 0) (#9)
    by Electa on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    to hear the response[s] to the SCOTUS ruling by civil rights organizations as to the overall effects this will have on civil rights laws as a whole.  The writing has been on the wall for sometime that civil rights were under attack.  The gay/lesbian issues and a woman's right to choice were merely facades to the underlying intent to rescend the CivRiAct. Although I am opposed to both gay marriage and abortion, as a means of birth control, I have stood in support of these groups to protect the civil rights of all Americans.  My take has been, if they'll do it to these groups they'll do it to me.  This reality is what most so-called Black leaders, especially ministers, fell to understand as they fell prey to GWB's faith based initiative trap....the Lazarus mentally of Black ministers who accept the crumbs falling from the White(man's)table, will soon realize that they have once again sold our people down the river.

    This SCOTUS has eviscerated the protections of every group that finds solace under the Civil Rights Act.  The protections have been eroding every since Gingrich's Contract with America.  These rulings demonstrate the results of devolution.  Today America slipped 50 yrs. back in time.


    ridiculous statements (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:43:39 PM EST
    by the left on this ruling.

    What part of the 14th admendment have liberals forgotten?

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Roberts point is goverment can't try to right the wrongs of one group against another based on skin color alone.  

    Brown started off as protection for blacks against racial discrimination by local governments nation wide.   Now 50years after the initial Brown ruling through the legislative whim of liberals we have been trying to enforce an undefinable level of "diversity" through government quota's based on skin color.  

    The apocolyptic reaction by the left is all too predictable.

    What I wonder is why those who claim to speak for "diversity" think racial quota's are the asnwer since they haven't worked in the 40 years they've been tried since LBJ.


    Actually ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    ... we never forgot Brown v. Board of Education

    And here's an example of why.

    racial discrimination, including the the tree of strange fruit, is alive and thriving in america. Thanks to bush and his appointees.

    I never thought I would see this happen again in America:
    If you white, you alright
    If you brown, stick around
    If you black, step back


    In the bad old days (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:55:37 PM EST

    In the bad old days school administrators would deny students admission to the school the student wished to attend and assign that student to a different based on the race of that student and the administrator's desired racial composition for the assigned school.  That was bad.  We called that segregation.  We ended that practice.

    In the good new days school administrators deny students admission to the school the student wishes to attend and assigns that student to a different based on the race of that student and the administrator's desired racial composition for the assigned school.  That is wonderful?  We call that diversity.


    School boards... (none / 0) (#10)
    by jarober on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    School boards certainly are elected by local communities.  As Big Tent is certainly aware, these kinds of local elections get very low turnout, and tend to end up in the hands of locally powerful interest groups.  Where I grew up in NY, that meant that sports budgets nearly always got cut, because a small (but always willing to turn out to vote) minority that opposed any and all school spending controlled the board.

    Suffice to say, the fact that the decision overturns a local board doesn't trouble me - I'd be surprised if even a fraction of the affected area actually backed the board's decision in this matter.

    So Big Tent - could you actually respond to what I said?  Say the state of MD decided that my daughter really ought to be shipped out of our suburban county (where I decided to live, in large measure due to the quality of the schools) and into Baltimore City - where the schools generally suck.

    Let's even say that my local school board approved it.  How does that benefit me or my child?  Does it ever occur to you that children aren't supposed to be pawns in our ideological battles?

    That's your argument? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    What's in it for me? You write:

    As Big Tent is certainly aware, these kinds of local elections get very low turnout, and tend to end up in the hands of locally powerful interest groups.

    Then get off your butt and work to change that. What a whiner.


    Education not social engineering. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fritz on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    Privatize the delivery system.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#13)
    by jarober on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    I was relating a story about the district I attended as a kid myself, many years ago.  Since my local district isn't trying to ship my daughter to a remote location, I'm not terribly worried.  

    You could try actually reading what I write, instead of crafting sound bytes to random selections.

    Whoe ever you are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    should get off their butt.

    You are objecting to democracy. Ridiculous.


    Tilt at Windmills... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jarober on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:28:52 PM EST
    You can tilt at windmills, or accept reality.  The vast majority of parents participate in major school decisions once: when they buy their home.  The percentage of the population that is willing to spend time on local politics is tiny - and you can yell for them to "get involved" all you want, but their involvement will mostly be limited to that buying decision.  Who are you, or anyone else, to wander over, announce that "you know best" and ship their children off to a different school - quite possibly one they actively rejected?

    That's simply the height of arrogance, and it's the kind of elitism that people dislike from both parties.


    Tilt at windmills? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:28:39 AM EST
    You think I am the one tilting at windmills, while you whine  about school boards.

    Here is a must-read for everyone... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:57:41 AM EST
    ...but especially for those who just don't get it.

    The Supreme Court Just Took Us Back to the Days of Segregation

    This takes us back to segregation? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again.even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis ... is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

    The tool of the segregationist was the assignment of students to schools on the basis of race.  This ruling would seem to put paid to that practice.  


    Is there a lawyer in the crowd?? (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    If I understand, the decision says that school boards can not use race in assignment of students to schools.

    Is this correct??

    If it is, how does that affect unitary school systems that were designed to achiece racial balance?

    And if a judge has ruled that a student can not leave their "home" school district to attend another district, is that ruling also void, given that the ruling was to attempt to obtain racial balance??

    My thanks in advance.

    BTW - Jondee, edger, squeaky, sailor... Could you please note that these are questions about the law, so it would helpful if you would wait until I made a comment about the law before you start your regular attacks?

    change (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:56:42 AM EST
    Please make that "attend another school either in or outside the home district" in para  4

    Attacks? (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    The Law is getting whiter.

    Feeling a little paranoid this morning, ppj? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:35:29 AM EST
    Anything new?