In a ruling that could have huge implications for Champaign Unit 4 Schools and the Consent Decree, the Supreme Court has limited the use of race when assigning students to public schools:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students' race.
The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.
The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's other three liberals.
Right now, it's just a placeholder story. I'll add more links and details as the stories hit the wires, but I wanted to create a thread for discussion.
UPDATE 9:45 AM: This tidbit was in Tom Kacich's column yesterday (sorry, no link) and I thought it was interesting and pertinent here.
A Money magazine list of the best places to live shows that most highly rated communities have a large percentage of their young population attending public schools, the notion that a good public school system is essential to a community's health. In Fort Collins, Colo., for example, 94.1 percent of students attend public schools. In Naperville - the highest-rated community in Illinois - 94.5 percent of young people attend public schools. But in Champaign, 81.8 percent attend public schools. The percentage is even lower in Peoria (78.8 percent), Bloomington (76.2 percent) and Springfield (75.5 percent).
UPDATE 11:01 AM: I've attached a copy of today's Supreme Court ruling, which was so kindly emailed to me by a friend. I've not yet had time to read it.
UPDATE 11:23 AM: From an emailer:
It is interesting it makes a distinction which might be relevnt here in Champaign between using race to integrate in a district that is remediating a past harm under an order (read: consent decree) and one that is just doing it. I think the bottom line may be that when the consent decree expires Champaign would have to quit using race as a determining factor in schools of choice placement. It isn’t clear if they would have to anyway. I guess I don’t know enough about how Champaign makes its placement determinations. Although I am not sure anyone really does.
And, from the same emailer, this "money quote" from the opinion:
The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics. Racial balancing is not transformed from “patently unconstitutional” to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it “racial diversity."
UPDATE: 2:45 PM: The Wall Street Journal has this Q&A.
What did the Court decide?
In a highly charged atmosphere in the court, the justices ruled 5-4 that the plans were unconstitutional. Four justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that race can never be a factor in these kinds of decisions, with the only exception being a remedy to official segregation. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fifth vote. Importantly, his concurring opinion didn’t reach as far as the plurality. He ruled that race can be a factor in some circumstances, although not to the extent as employed by the two school districts. Because his was the fifth and deciding vote, his more nuanced view could be the one that school districts look to in crafting new programs. It will also likely muddy how the decision is interpreted.Who will it affect?
It will nix any school district with a similar plan — one in which race is used as a tiebreaker. Seattle, for example, used several factors if schools were oversubscribed, including whether the student had a sibling at the same school and whether they were white or “non-white.” The ruling could affect similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and could prompt districts instead to use other proxies, such as economic status, or to build schools in mixed neighborhoods.Does it overturn Brown v. Board of Education?
No. But it does reflect a deep division over Brown, the 1954 decision that abolished official school segregation and the court’s most celebrated case. The plurality today says Brown means schools can’t look at race in any circumstances. It’s a formalistic view that says racial categories are inherently invidious, regardless of their purpose. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” said Chief Justice Roberts.For the dissenters, Brown was designed to destroy an effective caste system that made blacks inferior, and communities today should be able to try different ways to promote integration. “To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in dissent.
Archpundit says the WSJ has a error above (quoted from CapFaxBlog - I couldn't find it at ArchPundit):
The writer claims that Kennedy allows for race as a factor–he specifically says it cannot be a factor, but that other strategies may be pursued that produce diversity. That’s a huge difference and has very bad impacts on settled cases. I don’t think many of the writers have ever looked at a settlement agreement for a deseg case, but they almost always include race as a factor for several of the programs. This ruling seems to invalidate all of those programs. It’s incredibly sweeping if Kennedy sticks by his decision.
UPDATE 4:55 PM: Here's today's NG story, done on a short deadline this morning:
A U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-based school assignment plans may not have an immediate effect on the Champaign school district, says a lawyer for black families in the district.
Carol Ashley, a Chicago attorney who represents the plaintiffs in the Champaign school district's consent decree case, said she is still reviewing the decision, but believes the district's schools of choice plan is permissible, because the district is still governed by the consent decree.
Advertisement"Our case is completely different from the two before the court," she said.
Champaign school officials issued a statement that said they are still reviewing the court decision and how it may affect the district's practices. It said the school board will discuss the matter at a public meeting, after they've had the chance to meet with the district's lawyer.
In the cases before the court, the school assignment plans were voluntary. The Jefferson County, Ky., school district, in Louisville, had been subject to a desegregation decree, but it expired in 2000, a year before the district adopted its school assignment plan. The Seattle school district had never been subject to such a decree.
Ashley also noted the Champaign school district went through an adjudication process where the court found there were racial disparities and remedies, such as the schools of choice plan, were justified.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| SC2007-06-29.pdf | 1.4 MB |
This should destroy the "controlled choice" model being used by Champaign - all we need is someone to challenge it.
As to Kacich's point, I tend to agree. The people who defend Champaign schools are losing the argument to the market - people are deciding with their feet and checkbooks. Unless that is acknowledged, things will not improve.
I would like to see a comparison of school enrollment changes vs. those census changes you posted - my guess would be Champaign's growth resulted in much smaller (if any) school enrollment growth.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding how the Consent Decree works, but it doesn't make race a factor at all. Any child's parents can choose (in order of preference) which elementary school they want that child to attend. Does Unit 4 in fact use race when approving those selections? I would think that if they didn't, then our system is inherently "fair". IF that is the case, I don't see this USSC decision affecting us at all.
As someone who has taken a look at this, the ruling has a political impact but not necessarily a practical impact. It certainly will help make it less likely the Consent Decree will be extended and it will only magnify the pressure to get rid of Controlled Choice, or at least return it to what it was intended to be (namely an actual choice of schools, as opposed to a choice of commute). I don't think we're going to see a lawsuit to chuck the Consent Decree in total... at least not until there is a large push to extend the Consent Decree.
However, controlled choice does take into account race. Namely the school make up has to within 15% of the racial makeup of the community at large. You have a significant (but not insurmountable) preference for your local school, and some areas don't have local schools (like Savoy), but race is definitely part of the equation. You COULD make an argument that it is a racial diversification plan pure and simple, but I think you'd not have a definite outcome on that point in court.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Race is indeed a factor - "racial balance" thoughout the district is achieved by giving minorities preference in the "lottery" process.
Dang, too slow :-(
Thanks for the answer guys. While I am fully aware of the purpose of the Consent Decree, I was not aware that they used a racial preference in awarding those choices.
We shopped very heavily for schools when we first moved here, to include annoying the hell out of some teachers at various local schools by insisting on visiting and observing their classrooms. We found that classes at the same grade levels were not taught at the same levels around the district. We were very glad for the school of choice program because it allowed us to put our daughter in the classroom that we felt would be best for her.
The News-Gazette has a ridiculous article today in which the plaintiff's attorney says the ruling will have no impact. Of course, there is no opinion from anyone who might be able to offer a contrary point of view.
The plaintiff's attorney may very well be right, but certainly it's the plaintiff's attorney's job to say that.
That said, the NG was working on a very short deadline, and nobody really knows exactly what the impact of this will be on Unit 4.
Thomas always amazes me on this subject. If you haven't taken a chance to read his concurrence it is fantastic. Hopefully this leads to the unraveling of this racist and repugnant consent decree.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I wouldn't be so smug as to say it, "...will not effect the CU district". Of course it will, it's a thinly disguised quota system. Race is a determination on what schools are filled and a guaranteed quota of 15% monority is race based. The absolute best quote of the day is from CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS..."....The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race!:
Unit 4 schools are inherently racist under the consent decree... under the decree it is assumed that the whiter the school is the more superior it is somehow. It's absolutely repugnant. As if a predominantly black school couldn't be absolutely superior to a predominantly white school. It's got nothing to do with skin pigment for crying out loud. Bussing in some white kids to the school is going to make a predominantly black school better? My god! What madness is that? Bussing black kids to be next to more white kids will make them better students? You gotta be kidding me. All it does is allow the schools to neglect the real problems going on with the district which is evidenced by the problems actually getting worse since the consent decree going into effect.
The whole situation is disgusting. I can't believe the school board didn't fight this racist decree tooth and nail. Meanwhile who suffers the most? Minority students. Whose real problems are still not the color of their skin but the real problems inhibiting their education.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
As if a predominantly black school couldn't be absolutely superior to a predominantly white school. It's got nothing to do with skin pigment for crying out loud.
Amen! And the same goes for bathrooms and waterfountains while we're at it. Who is to say that a black water fountain can't be absolutely superior to a white one? And who is to say that black restaurants aren't better than white restaurants? Why do these black people want to eat at our restaurants anyway?
Thanks Glock for clearing all this up. If only it were still the GOOD OLE DAYS!!!
Uh... not what I was saying, but feel free to make a fool out of yourself anyways. Be my guest. [eyes rolling to a nice steady rumble]
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
What makes it difficult to discuss this topic is that some people, including a few on the SCOTUS, don't see the difference between laws that require segregation and some school being all or mostly black because of other factors, such as where people chose to live.
I think it illustrates that conservatives tend to be concerned with process while liberals are concerned with outcomes. For a conservative, a fair contest is one where both sides play according to the same rules, even if one side almost always wins, but to a liberal, a fair contest is one where each side wins 50% of the time. Of course, in order to achieve the liberal definition of "fair", the law must be applied differently among people depending on their situation. This just so happens to be unconstitutional when "situation" means race.
Yeah, it is what you are saying. Apparently you just don't know it. Your argument against the consent decree is the exact same argument that was made by segregationists in Mississippi in the 1950s. EXACTLY THE SAME!
Of course that's probably a coincidence. There's no way you'd ever endorse segregated schools, right?
Bussing in some white kids to the school is going to make a predominantly black school better? My god! What madness is that?
Oh.
Anon... I hate to interrupt your frothing at the mouth excitement at the chance at pointing out how racist I am, but I'm afraid you're just going to have to wipe your mouth and calm yourself. See the word: PREDOMINATELY
I'm not talking about segregated schools. I'm not talking about segregated anything. I'm talking about schools that have racial balances that do not necessarily match the exact balance of the community at large and how bussing kids of various skin colors back forth makes zero sense to correct educational deficiencies at them. GOT IT? Are we clear yet? If you need me to be any more clear I've been raised since I was a wee lad to be a great admirer of Martin Lurther King, Jr. I think he was a hell of a guy and I honest to god wish he was still around to fight the good fight for the civil rights movement because I think the current civil rights movement leaders have things a bit twisted, to say the least. Now quit trying to imply I'm a racist when I'm arguing quite plainly that the RACES ARE ABSOLUTELY EQUAL AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.
Christ almighty.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think it illustrates that conservatives tend to be concerned with process while liberals are concerned with outcomes. For a conservative, a fair contest is one where both sides play according to the same rules, even if one side almost always wins, but to a liberal, a fair contest is one where each side wins 50% of the time. Of course, in order to achieve the liberal definition of "fair", the law must be applied differently among people depending on their situation. This just so happens to be unconstitutional when "situation" means race.
I just love your keen, insightful and utterly incorrect interpretations of what liberals see and want. It's so refreshing, really. <eye roll>
We don't want each side to win 50% of the time, we want it to be as fair as possible by doing everything possible to make sure that one side doesn't enter the "contest" with a disproportionate advantage over the other. It's hardly a fair race when the deck is stacked against you in advance, wouldn't you agree? There are a lot of factors that those who haven't worked with these kids don't see, don't understand and probably never will because that would involve having empathy for others, a skill all conservatives do not have because they hate everyone who isn't like them (see, I can make blanket generalities too! :).
Having spent my K-12 years in Unit 4 and graduating a few years before the consent decree went into effect, I can tell you that things weren't all that great before, but things were limping through and some progress was being made, just not very fast.. The spirit of the consent decree is correct; there were issues that needed addressing in Unit 4...however the application and letter is a horrible travesty that has been marring this district since Day 1 which has not only not addressed those previous issues in an adequate manner, but has created many more, to the point that real progress on making quality education for all a reality has been knocked back about 10 years before the decree was implemented...
Nice writeup today at NRO:
Good point, Judge Thomas.
Here is an exerpt from another review of the ruling at NRO:
The more I read, the more it seems to me that Unit #4 would have a very hard time defending a challenge to "controlled choice", which sounds awful similar to Seattle's choice policy.
Well gee "Glock", if you like Martin Luther King then that's a different story. And thanks for clarifying that you're not a racist. You probably even have a black friend or two, right? Great!
What I don't understand is how you can think resegregation of schools is NOT racist. Are you blinded to reality by your ideology? Sure, black schools don't HAVE to be inferior. Just like segregated schools in Mississippi didn't HAVE to be inferior.
But guess what? They are! What are you going to do about it? Talk about some level playing field that doesn't exist? Take your personal child down to a black school to personify integration since the government will no longer let your local school district take that step? Or just make vague arguments about how things are really screwed up and need to be fixed, all the while defending a decision by the supreme court that has thrown this country back to 1953?
Wake up! Black schools are underserved, underfunded, and INFERIOR to white schools. It's not because black people are inferior to white people, it is because black folks have been discriminated against for over 300 years in this country and they continue to be discriminated against today. This ruling is just the latest blow to the black community, but Katrina really showed us where America is at. This many years after Dr. King and the others tried to bring us out of the shadows, now we have taken so many steps backward. So close, and yet so far still to go.
Vouchers vouchers vouchers.
There is a huge, and the Court says dispositive difference between implementing a policy of diversity to fix a problem caused by the government segregation, and implementing a policy of diversity to get diversity for its own sake.
The frothing and name-calling, saying conservatives are all racists who want segregation, is really unproductive.
What most conservatives and I think all libertarians want is (to the degree possible) for the government to totally ignore a person's race when dealing with that person. How that can be construed as racism is inexplicable.
See the Academy, where we start at pretension and never look back.
"Wake up! Black schools are underserved, underfunded, and INFERIOR to white schools. It's not because black people are inferior to white people..."
Serve them better... fund them better... help ensure the kids are claiming an education... I NEVER said blacks were inferior as much as you are desperately trying to imply I did.
We're in agreement... if you want to fix predominately black schools you fix the real problems going on with them... which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW BLACK THE STUDENTS ARE IN THEM.
Duh! Sending more white kids to it has nothing to do with fixing the problems at the school.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
What I don't understand is the amazing lack of outrage over the fact that the federal government has just made a decision which micro-manages how local school boards address the diversity problems in their districts. Does it seem strange and ironic to anyone else that this is probably the most activist, precedent-breaking judgment to come from the SCOTUS in 60 years? Is this what we have to look forward to with our new right-wing court? More precedent shredding and activist judgments? And, if so, where are the federalists on this site?
As an aside, it is unclear to me that this particular decision will have much impact on the consent decree since that order was handed down by a judge. This decision seems to deal directly with voluntary programs and it is my reading of Kennedy that court orders will be exempt. But I could be wrong on that ...
One point to Glock - if you are so adamant that black schools and students are not inferior then why don't you take the side of the black community on this one? Almost every major black organization is against this decision. Are they all stupid? Are they unwilling to understand what is best for their children? I don't understand how you can say you have respect for the African-American community's ability to handle its schools without integration and then turn around and defend a decision that everyone in the African-American community abhores. Can you explain this?
Finally, Robert's quote about, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race!" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the reality of America. It is really shocking to me that such a highly educated man could make such a stupid statement. And it is very worrisome as well.
Discrimination in the schools is rooted in such a wide array of cultural problems. The efforts to integrate schools by force have been crude attempts to rectify some of these problems by the government, with mixed results. But to say that simply outlawing the government's efforts to integrate schools is a way to integrate schools is silly nonsense. What of real estate markets that allow the privleged to huddle in neighborhoods with the best schools while forcing the lower classes into other hoods with the poorest schools? What about lack of opportunity, the cycle of failure that comes from young people in poor neighborhoods being forced to attend crappy schools? One wonders how Mr. Roberts expects this decision to help those children.
At the bottom of this decision is a profound misunderstanding of the legacy of the civil rights movement. Conservatives tend to love MLK because they often have him freeze-framed on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial talking about people "not being judged by the color of their skin". Few indeed are the conservatives who understand that King was a Christian communist sympathizer and a radical labor organizer whose life was taken from him as he supported a sanitation worker's strike in Memphis. By co-opting the most mainstream aspects of the movement, conservatives have essentially taken all the meaning out of the movement. There is little doubt that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Roberts believe that Dr. King is looking down on them and smiling today because of this decision. Yet anyone who knows anything about King knows that he is in fact rolling over in his grave.
Teacher Man... I think it's a perfectly simple and true statement. Not a stupid one. I read through Thomas' concurring opinion and I'm in complete agreement with him. Thomas is also a strong adherent of Martin Luther King Jr.'s work. Thomas grew up in painfully segregated southern culture. He suffered through some of the worst of modern racism. He knows this issue better than anyone else on the bench and better than me or you. I strongly suggest you read his concurring opinion. Roberts' statement is dead on. Thomas is dead on.
And local communities do have the power to manage their own affairs but they must treat everyone equally when doing so. The Constitution cannot and should not be cherry picked, not by Bush, the NAACP, you, me, or anybody else. Treating people differently on the basis of race is inherently unconstitutional. This is obvious. Why previous courts and the minority on this court and the NAACP cannot see this I have no clue. Why you cannot see it I have no clue. Skin pigment has absolutely no bearing on the worth, value, etc of a student, applicant, etc. Nor should it ever again in our society. Period. This was a good ruling.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
You give the highly educated Mr. Thomas and Mr. Roberts very little credit.
And you are right, conservatives have cherry-picked the best of the best of Dr. King, and have largely ignored the communist and labor organizing stuff. Would you like it better if we thrashed him on his holiday for those positions?
Furthermore I think King would be more likely rolling over in his grave over the treatment of Thomas by other modern civil rights "leaders" of our time who have done little to help the teeming masses of poverty stricken blacks in our nation who have yet to overcome the bitter cycle of poverty and violence that have afflicted them since the civil rights movement. Thomas who is probably the most powerful black man in our political system today is literally demonized because he's a conservative who believes in equality and almost all civil rights leaders are liberals who believe in equality. As if a black man could not have his own political opinion. Do civil rights leaders believe black men are too dumb to have their own opinions? If they do are they traitors to their race? Apparently as they are often referred to as Uncle Toms. It's sickening. In the end they all want the same thing. For black men to succeed in America, but they differ in their opinions of what will work the best to help them climb up.
Do I honestly believe bussing some white kids into a predominately black school will help that predominately black school improve? Do you? Honestly? If that school is having problems with grades would I rather that school get more funding aimed at improving grades? You betcha! If the problem is kids needing more attention, more money for smaller class sizes, more teachers, more special classes for kids who are behind and need extra tutoring in subjects. If there's problems with gangs or outside-of-school issue, more funding for after school programs to help keep the kids out of trouble, work on cool science projects / communit projects etc... anything to keep them engaged. It'd be worth it. I'd vote to raise property taxes out the wazoo if I heard some realistic solutions to the education issues here in town. We have some big ones. Sending an extra white kid over doesn't do squat. We all know it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
These are interesting opinions. First to RSW - YES! I would much prefer that Americans understand the complexities and the radicalism inherent in MLK's teachings. Not just about economic and racial issues, but also about Christian brotherhood and forgiveness. It seems to me the worst thing that has ever happened to the Good Doctor was giving him his holiday. Take a look at the debate over that holiday sometime in the congressional record. Kennedy, Jackson, etc. are falling all over themselves to proclaim that King wasn't really that radical. He was! And he should be remember for what he really believed instead of the picture-postcard we all have of him screaming "I have a dream!".
Glock - I know your heart is in the right place, and I know that you really just want to see the situation improve. But this decision is not helping. Let me ask you this simple question: how is this decision going to help our poorest schools? What is being done here to make the situation better?
My take is that Thomas (who I don't respect intellectually, sorry) and Roberts (who I used to respect intellectually) are way ahead of their time. It is too soon to start ripping down the government programs that have helped create a now burgeoning black middle class. The end result of this decision will be more segregated schools and more densely packed poor schools. It will, in my professional opinion, serve to undercut the gains that have been made over the last sixty years by the African-American community.
The idea that race is not important and should never be considered as a factor in school placement sidesteps almost 400 years of institutional racism directed at black people in this country. The institutional racism was not directed at whites. It was directed at blacks. This racism, whether it was slavery, Jim Crow, Katrina or Obama's Secret Service protection, CREATED the need for distinctions based upon race. It wasn't the black folks who started this mess about focusing on race, it was the white folks.
Now apparently we want to pretend that it is all about equality but not about egalitarianism? It's a convenient ideological point but it misses the big picture of American history.
Teacherman, there is no law against mixing people on the basis of income. A city or State that implemented a plan like that would be impervious to Federal intervention, since the Fedra Gummint has only certain issues on which it can intervene. They could try to stretch the Commerce clause, but I'm digressing, because they wouldn't.
If you're worried about poor kids, treat them for their poorness, not for their skin color. Statistically speaking you'd do a lot of both, but you'd never even have to ask a kid what race they were.
--
See the Academy, where we start at pretension and never look back.
Something I noticed about IP's story -- theTom Kacich column said:
But the Money magazine criteria for best places to live always include the quality of the school system. Petitio principii.
See the Academy, where we start at pretension and never look back.
"Let me ask you this simple question: how is this decision going to help our poorest schools? What is being done here to make the situation better?"
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. What was the race based program doing to help the schools? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. These schools need to actually:
address
the
real
problems
which have absolutely nothing to do with how much skin pigment the students have. If poverty is an issue, address the poverty. If gangs are an issue address the gangs. If class sizes are an issue address the class sizes. If teacher quality is an issue address the teacher quality. If the facilities are an issue address the facilities. If there are more blacks than whites or more whites than blacks... adding a white kid or black kid won't make a lick of difference. You know it and I know it. There is absolutely nothing about the average skin pigment level in the school that has anything to do with the success or failure of the students in them. We all know that other factors are what matter. So why even bother fighting this fight? It's a dead fight. It has been for years. As a teacher especially you should know that adding an extra white kid to your class is not going to improve the learning experience of the other kids in your classroom. Why not address the real problems and stop kicking this dead horse?
I truly, honestly, don't get it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
This decision doesn't micro-manage local schools any more than laws prohibiting other things. I'm sure you don't mind that businesses are micro-managed in the same way.
Regarding the "activist" court, I'm not aware that any precedent was overturned in this case, but I may be wrong. The judgment seems like a good interpretation of the law passed by the people's representatives. Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment that says, "The government can discriminate based on race as long as its for a good reason."
Which programs are those? Employment by the government seems to be the "program" that has done the most for the black middle class.
... adding a white kid or black kid won't make a lick of difference. You know it and I know it. There is absolutely nothing about the average skin pigment level in the school that has anything to do with the success or failure of the students in them.
Actually I don't know this at all. What I do know is that schools with large non-white populations are usually among the lowest in per-pupil spending, and that these schools are usually in poor, economically depressed inner-city areas. These are, by far, our country's worst schools and the white flight that has occurred in the mast 20 years has only made them more segregated.
You'd like to argue that race doesn't make a difference. But the fact is that it does. Ideologically you might be right. On a cloud, or at the foot of Socrates it may not matter the "pigment" of a person's skin. But in America in 2007 it matters a whole hell of a lot. If you don't understand that then I don't know what else to say. Race matters. It matters in the schools, it matters in the legal system, and it matters in the workplace. It would be nice if we could live in a world where everyone really was treated equally. But we live in a country filled with minority populations, many of whom are the descendents of slaves, and who are now huddled in inner-city hoods with the worst schools. This decision just made it more difficult for those students to get out of those hoods every day. It also made it easier for the white folks to continue to ignore the problem, or to pretend that the problem doesn't exist at all.
Employment by the government seems to be the "program" that has done the most for the black middle class.
You are an ugly, ugly man.
You're killing me. You honestly believe that if you had a classroom that was predominately black that a new white transfer student would somehow elevate the rest of the classes scores somehow? Or you're just not sure? C'mon.
You keep trying to conflate race with school funding. If a predominately black school isn't getting the resources it needs, isn't the more logical approach to get it the resources it needs as opposed to sending more white kids there? You are either avoiding or unable to tell me what it is about sending more white kids to that school that benefits that school in any way shape or form. All it really does it make you come off as sounding like you are arguing our schools have to be "whiter" to succeed. Which, of course, just doesn't make any sense. I'd like to see some realistic approaches to helping our students both catch up and succeed. I'd like to see some solutions that go beyond the usual just throwing more money at the problem and hoping it goes away.
A lot of people are using the term resegregation, which seems to be an attempt to invoke the images of the government institutionalized racial divisions as opposed to community level divisions that the government has little discretion over. If Unit 4 was intentionally dividing up the races then under prior rulings I could see how a desegregation/integration program would be necessary. But reading through the consent decree that wasn't their finding. They merely found things had become disproportionate and minorities were less likely to succeed. Their solution unfortunately allowed the district to avoid address the real problems behind that for years. Indeed, the problems have only gotten worse since, so I think this much is obvious.
Certain schools weren't failing because they were disproportionately black. Other schools weren't doing better because they were disproportionately white. The skin-pigment never had anything to do with it. And bussing white kids to one and black kids to other not only didn't help... but the whole mess has diverted so much attention away from actually addressing any of the actual issues that the problems have only worsened. Meanwhile programs to get kids the extra tutoring and attention they may have needed didn't happen. After school program? Nope. Community involvement. Nothing.
I mean, what's this big secret you aren't telling us. You're holding back. I have a guess. I remember back in the day when schools repainted everything and they told us the new colors were found by sociologists to be more conducive to an institutionalized environment... perhaps, you guys are behind a plot that has more to do with the psychological color scheme?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Loren Heal, please rein in that vocab of yours.
I know, I'm sorry. I brought down your socialist fantasy by pointing out facts. If I'm "ugly" then you don't need to respond to them, and the fantasy lives on. Is that what they call "critical thinking" in the schools these days? I know that's how "critical studies" in higher education deal with facts that shatter the visions of leftists.
First to RSW - YES! I would much prefer that Americans understand the complexities and the radicalism inherent in MLK's teachings. Not just about economic and racial issues, but also about Christian brotherhood and forgiveness.
That is interesting, and consistent I guess. You have also said similar things about Columbus, right?
I think many folks just like to pick out the important and great accomplishments of people, and ignore less significant aspects and the character flaws. MLK was a great figure in history because of his impact on race in this country, not his views on economics.
Glock - I am through with this conversation. You continue to oversimplify the situation into "black kids need a white kid in their school" and you seem unable or unwilling to see the complexities and the advantages of these programs. Fair enough. I believe these programs were authentic and genuine steps in the right direction for bringing fairness and equality to our school systems. You see them as some sort of terrible system designed to punish white kids while discriminating against black kids. Again, fair enough.
A majority of the Supreme Court Justices seems to agree with you even if one of them probably wouldn't be where he is today without integrated schools and busing. Ironic? Sure. But what else should one expect from people who can't even acknowledge the one basic fact of American history: Race Matters.
Cheers!
I brought down your socialist fantasy by pointing out facts.
Oh, it's a fact that more middle class African-Americans are employed by the government than any other sector? Really? That's pretty interesting. Could you post a link to the statistics that prove this is true? Not being argumentative here, I have just never heard that statistic before and I would love to see where it comes from.
Thanks!
Now that's not what I said, I believe I said
That being said, your statement may in fact be true, but I'm not sure.
A good article to read would be Collins, S. (1983). The Making of the Black Middle Class. Social Problems, 30, 369-382. Here's a link to it at jstor
Wouldn't it have been easier to check to see if it was true before calling names?
Oh boy. Now I am confused. Was I supposed to check to see if it was true (ie: a fact) before calling you names, or am I putting words into your mouth because you never claimed it's a fact?
Let's make this simple. Here is what you said:
Which is at least implying that the black middle class was built "most"ly by government employment. That's a pretty bold statement. Surely you have something to back it up? Something more than an obscure book from 1983?
I realize you make a living over here by saying really bold, usually unsubstantiated, things. But even for you this is a little over-the-top, dontcha think?
Glock - I am through with this conversation. You continue to oversimplify the situation into "black kids need a white kid in their school" and you seem unable or unwilling to see the complexities and the advantages of these programs.
Actually if you read my statements I'm upset because YOU seem to support solutions that do this (add a white kid to a predominately black classroom or a black kid to a predominately white classroom). And can't seem to explain what good that'd do. And still either refuse to explain what good, if any, they'd do or can't. It's not that I'm over simplifying it. It's that I'm complaining about this oversimplified solution that you seem to support. Personally I think it is misguided.
You see them as some sort of terrible system designed to punish white kids while discriminating against black kids.
No I see these programs as punishing minority students and having little effect on white kids other than creating more racial friction due to the obvious unfairness and unconstitutional methods employed by them. Minority students still get punished because the REAL problems behind failing schools are being ignored and they are far more likely to be in those failing schools do to other factors that have little ot nothing to do with how much skin pigment they have.
Feel free to run away from the debate. But your inability to explain yourself here just leaves me feeling pretty well vindicated in my point of view.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
TM - If you really want to make sense of what I said, it was that of all the programs that the government has, employment was the one that has done the most for the black middle class.
It's not an obscure book, it's a nice, short, journal article - not written from a conservative perspective, but probably by someone who thinks a lot like you politically. They point out that the black middle class is not very secure because a high percentage of the black middle class is employed by the government.
It shows that, for example, around 1970, of all the black people in the country who were managers, 35% worked for the government.
I don't know what else to say. If you want to ignore it, fine. But it is what it is. My claim was neither wild nor unsubstantiated. If you want me to send you the PDF, I'd be more than happy.
Busing kids of different races in is certainly a crappy solution.
But what's a better solution?
If it wasn't such a serious situation, it'd be amusing how many special ethnic majority folks in every culture were so proudly giving each other masturbatory backslaps for "figuring out" that "race is just a construct".
Money is just a construct. If we didn't believe in it, it would go away. So is society in general. So is language. The sounds that make up "Pundit" have no inherent meaning, but they certainly have a sort of comic significance in the context of their use in our society. We make social assumptions in order to interact at all. These constructs uplift, shape, and kill.
Race is no exception. Of course, race in itself is meaningless. But "race is a construct" is not a successful retort to actual experiences in race anymore than shouting "institutional racism exists" at your local SAT testing center would help you get into college.
Large quantities of educated ethnic minorities can understand this distinction and have thoughtful discourse on the issues of race, can't you too?
It's amazing to me that nearly two centuries after DuBois and four decades after the civil rights movement, the SCOTUS can't appreciate the racial climate of the country.
TM/ADAM: let's get back on topic. All Adam has proven is that oprivate industries are slower at integrating than public ones. Which contradicts most of his own ideology.
Bring it all back: I want to hear from anyone else who posts:
Are you satisfied with a society geographically segregated by race? Are you satisfied with a school-system that is now more segregated than 40 years ago? Are you satisfied with telling yourself that race doesn't matter when it's been shown to be a major element in real estate showing, educational access, health care access, and hiring?
If the answer is anything other than a hard "YES!" for any of these questions, how about a real policy proposal on these issues other than "pretend like the problems don't exist and assume that they will get better"?
Otherwise, it seems fair to question whether you are opposed not to the broken institutions of forced integration or affirmative action issues, but to the very idea of racial, cultural and economic integrations.
That's a bit of a leap of logic. I think what the article shows is that when the government specifically seeks to discriminate based on race, whether for or against blacks, it is successful in discriminating.
At any rate, the REAL topic here is the SCOTUS decision, which has nothing to do with any one's vision for how society should be and everything to do with what the law says.
Race is a big factor in marriage. Should the government get involved to make sure that there is no racial discrimination when somebody picks a spouse? That could have a bigger impact on some body's position in society than what job they get. If you don't think the government should do this, you are racist.
Sorry I was under the crazy impression that values had something to do with how you evaluate decisions. Obviously for those with no values, this is not the case.
Race is a big factor in marriage. Should the government get involved to make sure that there is no racial discrimination when somebody picks a spouse? That could have a bigger impact on some body's position in society than what job they get. If you don't think the government should do this, you are racist.
Dumbest analogy ever.
Are you satisfied with a society geographically segregated by race?
Interesting question. But, more interesting, if you answer "no", is how would you try to change it? I tend to think that as long as all people are truly free to chose where they want to live, the gov't shouldn't be trying to tinker with the results of those individual choices.
What about real estate steering by race? Should the government be trying to tinker with that?
What does it do to equal opportunity if your racial background, through no fault of your own devalues your property?
I agree that forced relocations are not the answer, but certainly allowing ethnic majority preferences and whining about ethnic minority preferences as racism is not the answer either.
I think everyone should bring some good ideas to the table.
Let's say we have school A. It is in a middle class neighborhood neighborhood and its student body is predominately made up of green students. The school gets better funding and the students have fewer problems outside of school interferring with their academic success.
Then there's school B. It is in a lower class neighborhood and its student body is predominately made up of blue students. The school has less funding, bigger class sizes, problems with gangs and violence and lower test scores and even higher drop out rates. There seems to be a large degree of problems outside of the school causing problems for the students with their academic success.
A solution is proposed... send some of the blue students from the predominately blue school to the predominately green school and vice versa.
What is witnessed? School B is still underfunded and the problems associated with that need to be addressed. Students whose academic success is being affected by factors outside of school are still not succeeding regardless of which schol they end up at. Some of the blue students do get a slight boost from ending up at a bit nicer school but the overwhelming majority are still left completely screwed. And some green kids are now going to a crappier school than they otherwise would have. School A still performs better than School B. None of the underlying problems are addressed so they may in fact get worse.
Now logically wouldn't it have made more sense to have actually fixed the problems going on at school B than just shuffle the students around and ignore the problems? School B still sucks. It still needs to be fixed. Nothing was done. Even the kids that got moved to a nicer school might still be screwed if what was really holding them back were the factors outside of the school, in the neighborhoods and community that were left completely unadressed.
I know this is a rehash but I thought maybe a visual aid to point out the absurdity might help.
I know Teacher Man wants to try to paint this over and over and over again as the same thing as the integration fight in the 50s and 60s but we already integrated, this isn't the deep south. We're talking about natural racial imbalances. Not goverment implemented racial segregation that we must undo with more government. Worse, it's being used to implement racist government programs while neglecting real needs in our education system while minorities suffer. The irony is as twisted as it is sad.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock: I agree with your general point. If you'll notice, my previous posts reflect this agreement.
That being said, I have two major gripes:
1. As much as conservatives hate to admit it, diversity really is a positive thing. It's saddening to me that this is even still questioned, let alone the subject of so much ridicule. Kids who go to socially, economically, and yes, racially and ethnically homogenous schools are simply less educated than those who don't. I've seen it at the lowest ranked schools in the city and also I've seen it at Uni High which has been ranked number one in the country sporadically.
If you grow up among narrowly focused communities with the same focus you will be excellent at whatever the community is focused on. You will probably suck at most everything else.
This is documented over and over again. That's why if you have an island of kids playing one sport constantly, that island is going to produce a lot of world-class athletes in that sport. The island is probably not going to produce the world's leading opera singers.
When it's singers or athletes, it's not as serious. When it's cultural empathy, or social policy that's missing, it's a major problem.
Once again, this is not merely a race issue, but race is a component that, like it or not, still matters profoundly in American society. That there is so much protest by the ethnic majority group over whether it is significant at all is not surprising--the same dynamic is repeated throughout the world, and throughout our history.
2. This section of your writing is a complete fabrication:
we already integrated, this isn't the deep south. We're talking about natural racial imbalances.
We are not at all integrated. Like on many social issues, you can cherry-pick counter-examples, but even your sample schools do not reflect the reality of the schooling in our country. We can paint a pretty map with the largest city in the world as Alton, IL, but that doesn't make it true. The strongest majority of minority students in the country are schooled in schools like mine: 90%+ minority (mine is 99.9%), 90%+ (mine is in the low 90s) lowest income, and poorly funded and staffed in real dollars and real talent.
It might surprise you that I say poorly staffed in talent. That's simple mathematics. If there are factors that cause many of the most talented instructors to avoid a school completely, then you might have a few individual stars, but your overall talent pool is going to be low.
The reality is that we have a segregated system in which we have isolated poor minority students in the worst schools and "our own" children in highly funded "good schools" whether they be public, private or publically funded privately run charters.
You can whine and whine about public schools, busing, affirmative action and blah blah blah, but let's face it, the only people who've produced any hard evidence that they are doing something concrete about these issues or have anything other than rhetoric are myself and TM (maybe Bambenek, although I'm still unclear on what it is that he does).
As I've said before, grab a few of your magic bullets and beautiful philosophies and come down and experience my school's community. Bring your kids. Move into the community, get a job here, or enroll your own children.
And try not to be the umpteenth person to walk out, burnt out and blaming the kids.
xian... I think diversity is a great thing. But I don't think you have to necessarily force artificial racial balances in various institions to ensure the diversity of our culture is recognized and appreciated.and not marginalized.
As far as saying integration never happened, I think to some degree you're right. But to some degree people chose not to. Were really going to prohibit blacks from starting their own colleges, avoiding racist whites, etc? I think some things have improved, some thing will take more work... the south still makes me shake my head with disbelief... some people up here too. But government instituted segregation ended here a long time ago. That's not what we're dealing with. We're dealing with people's liberty, their choices. We're also dealing with crappy schools and students who need help succeeding in school. I say we should help them... not move them around and ignore those problems. Now to be fair I said that when I was a student my grades had nothing to do with skin color but I do remember my grades dropping a bit the more "black and blue" I got, but this was not skin pigment. This was due to a school shuffle in Peoria schools.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock - your pictures are very pretty but they seem to (again) miss the point. You dismiss integration efforts with:
Some of the blue students do get a slight boost from ending up at a bit nicer school but the overwhelming majority are still left completely screwed.
Really? You have this way of saying things that are just "true" without ever backing up the assertions with facts. Since this discussion was primarily about Unit 4 schools, perhaps you could show us what a negative impact the consent decree has had on Unit 4? Remember, we're not talking about the age-old Unit 4 problems, we are talking about problems that have been caused by the consent decree. This is a measure implemented to address problems that really do exist in this city. Have they made the problems worse or have they improved the situation, even slightly? And if they have improved the situation, why are you so eager to tear them down and get back to the way things used to be? If you care so much about student achievement, why are you so against something that is making at least incremental improvements in student achievement?
I know Teacher Man wants to try to paint this over and over and over again as the same thing as the integration fight in the 50s and 60s but we already integrated, this isn't the deep south.
Jonathan Kozol continues to be one of the most effective writers about this subject and I would humbly suggest you read his work. Savage Inequalities is a good place to start, but this article is more on point to what we are talking about. To even suggest that we are "integrated" demonstrates a lack of understanding about this subject that undercuts much of what you are arguing. If we can't even begin from the same place I have no idea how we are going to arrive at any sort of understanding.
But your inability to explain yourself here just leaves me feeling pretty well vindicated in my point of view.
I think I have explained myself quite well several times now. The reason integration programs, as crude and unfortunate as they are, are necessary is because they get the underserved students out of the bad schools, and because they force the wider community to accept responsibility for the worst schools in that community. Instead of being able to drive by Xian's school and say, "What is their problem anyway?" One must now consider that one's own child might have to go to THAT school. Suddenly it becomes, "Why isn't the school board doing something?" And we have a bingo.
But more important is the results that integrated schools have shown. We have the highest educated group of African-Americans in American history right now. We have a black man who has an excellent chance to become President and hundreds of black men and women serving in prestigious roles in the government. The US Military and the Fortune 500 have completely embraced affirmative action because they understand that diversity has been an essential element of their success. All of these realities can be traced, at least partly, to the success of integration programs in America.
Finally, you keep claiming that I am failing to answer your questions, but what about the questions I have asked?
It is quite easy to criticize, quite another thing to offer solutions. You obviously feel passionately about this issue. Assuming you understand that segregation does still exist and, in fact, is worse than it has been since the 1950s, what is your plan to address this problem? What should we be doing to solve this problem TODAY?
Xian is right. He and I spend the better years of our lives trying to address these issues in the hope that we are making a better society. We might (believe it or not!) have a perspective that deserves some respect. It is understandable that you are eager to tear down something that you believe smacks of racism. It is not understandable that you are unwilling to admit that systematic racism exists in this country or, more importantly, propose some sort of solution that (like the consent decree) will attempt to make things at least a little better.
Xian said: "1. As much as conservatives hate to admit it, diversity really is a positive thing. It's saddening to me that this is even still questioned, let alone the subject of so much ridicule. Kids who go to socially, economically, and yes, racially and ethnically homogenous schools are simply less educated than those who don't."
You are correct that diversity is a good thing...and that it is sad that conservatives have allowed themselves to be painted "anti-diversity." Diversity, unfortunately, has become a code word for a number of things that conservatives object to--special privileges, favoratism, quotas, etc.
It's not the first time Republicans have allowed themselves to be marginalized by taking a "principled stand" while being ignorant of the semantic/public perception issues. Remember "it takes a village...?"--Republicans objected to the notion that something other than the basic family unit was fundamentally important for raising children but didn't realize that "it takes a village..." is an ancient African-American proverb (allowing Democrats to "prove" that Republicans are all racists).
1. Wow teacher man if you can find the answer to the first question you will be rich. I think everyone who has looked at this issue would love to come up with a good answer. Your answer maybe smaller class sizes and take the kids away at birth and give them back after college, I don't know if that works?
2. I think the Supreme Courts Decision will have an impact on a lot of issues of the consent decree that are monitored not just busing.
3. I guess as long as the school districts spending is based on property tax assessments the amount of money the district will be able to spend will be based on the value of the houses in the district. So unless you plan on buying everyone $300,000 houses, then I don't expect a great change in the current system. I will tell you that many people move out of the district if you raise their property taxes to much you may not like it but those are the facts.
Not everything that happen's is systematic racism.
As far as saying integration never happened, I think to some degree you're right.
No, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that integration slowly, deliberately (far too slowly for justice's sake) was implemented, was reaping dividends and has been rolled back in this latest era.
People have this weird view of history that it naturally flows toward good rather than good results coming from people fighting against existing problems. This is a case where it has flowed backwards. Integration works and it improves education for everyone, not just the minority students. But for whatever reason, people have decided they just really don't like their kids going to school with kids of different ethnicities. All this to their own kids' detriment (just look at some of the people on this board who sure could have used some integrated schooling ;P)
That's what I'm most troubled by--people seem to think that fighting institutionalized racism is some charity case for black people. Institutional racism leaves the ethnic majority population, in general, as ghostly shadows of what they could develop into in a more egalitarian, merit-based system.
Look at this thread. Fair, thought provoking questions are asked and some engage them and grow the discussion. But most people avoid the questions entirely and choose to just chain themselves to shallow, half-understandings of the social realities.
But hey, it's not really your fault--most of you occupy an ethnic and economic power majority position in society--a position that is almost impossible to recover from in terms of developing into an effective critical thinker. But hey, work on the school reform and integration stuff, and there may yet be some hope for your kids :P
It's amazing that when Teacher Man and I speak at each other neither one of us seems to see what the other types because we say the same things over and over and respond to the others comments and yet the other continues to claim that we have failed to respond over and over again according to the other.
"To even suggest that we are "integrated" demonstrates a lack of understanding about this subject that undercuts much of what you are arguing. If we can't even begin from the same place I have no idea how we are going to arrive at any sort of understanding."
I was suggesting that we were nothing like Deep South gov't instituted segregation. No where even friggin' close. I hope you're not suggesting this. It's not the same fight. Period. One was against institutional racism, this is against people's decisions, habits, etc which is a bit harder to intrude upon in a free society.
"I think I have explained myself quite well several times now. The reason integration programs, as crude and unfortunate as they are, are necessary is because they get the underserved students out of the bad schools, and because they force the wider community to accept responsibility for the worst schools in that community. Instead of being able to drive by Xian's school and say, "What is their problem anyway?" One must now consider that one's own child might have to go to THAT school. Suddenly it becomes, "Why isn't the school board doing something?" And we have a bingo."
So your solution is that if we send enough middle class white kids to the crappy schools that the parents will ensure school improvement? HA! That's a good one. You know what they'll ensure? That they move to a better district, or move their kid to a private school, etc. Seems to be the growing trend in Unit 4. The solution to improve a failing school? Address the reasons why the school was failing in the first place. Don't use students like guinea pigs. Your rationale here borders on the sadistic.
Yes integration benefited blacks, still does, I wouldn't do away with integration at all. But I don't think these race based quota programs help them out with the current problem with failing schools in poorer communities that happen to have disproportionate numbers of racial minorities. This isn't an issue of government instituted race segregation anymore, it goes far deeper and the solutions require going far deeper. To avoid addressing those so you can take up the banner of civil rights marches past of movements long over, as noble as they were, is just absurd. That work is done. More challenging issues await and need our attention.
Finally, you keep claiming that I am failing to answer your questions, but what about the questions I have asked?
1) I already said this decision doesn't help our poorest schools, and nothing is being done to help the situation. The real problems are being ignored while everyone focuses on skin pigment which has little to do with what is holding students back. Which is sad. Ignoring those real problems is hurting minority students more than anybody else. So this decision in and of itself isn't helping our poorest schools, but perhaps it may force them to actually focus on fixing the problems surrounding our poorest schools and poorest communities instead of ignoring them and hoping sending a white boy in will shock people in other neighborhoods into doing something instead of moving further away or into a private school.
2) We seem to disagree on what integration is appropriate... correcting government instituted racial segregation versus more natural movements of human decisions that are harder, if not impossible, to control in a free society. One I support and consider necessary, the other I consider an intrusion into liberty. There is a lot of gray area in between where if a private institution has racist hiring pracitices or admission practices I could see a temporary ruling against them forcing a more equitable balance for a time being. But that wasn't even the case in Unit 4. It was mere statistical outcomes not actions based on discriminatory intents.
3) Indeed, the property tax system of education funding seems extremely backwards or at least extremely incomplete to me. Poorer urban areas seem to have the most extreme need for funding right now for additional programs for not just schools but community level programs to keep kids out of trouble, engaged in the community, with mentors, additional tutors, etc as needed in addition to the obvious disparity in educational funding problems. Funding isn't always the only issue of course. Sometimes an inner city district can spend three times as much as a middle class school and still do far worse if the funds are allocated poorly.
It's not that I have no solutions, it's that I strongly disagree with one of the central premises of your solutions, though we probably agree on many others. I just don't see a predominately black school as necessarily being doomed to failure. Some are quite successful and beat out any Unit 4 school. But there's more to it than just skin pigment, as I said.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Oh... I forgot to answer the other part of 2. A very large portion of the black civil rights community adheres to a political/economic philosophy I disagree with even though I generally agree with them on the civil rights aspect. So much like Clarence Thomas I'm vilified as a racist for not supporting some of their political/economic solutions when it touches on race, even though I believe I'm still upholding a strong civil rights view. On some issues this is bound to happen. Even strong civil rights supporters are going to disagree sometimes, especially if they adamantly disagree on other political/economic issues. I don't believe this makes for some baffling mystery. Just the way it goes. I am free to respectfully disagree.
You should hear the gun folks get into a debate about some libertarian topic. Most 2nd Amendment folks are Republicans but there's a loud minority of libertarians out there who will argue to the death about certain topics. It gets pretty heated. Does this mean they don't both still believe in the right to keep and bear arms because one thinks we should have the right to own machine guns and the other thinks that a semi-auto is probably the reasonable ceiling? Just a difference of opinion between people who both support a right... just disagree on other nuances. Just as an example.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
What about real estate steering by race? Should the government be trying to tinker with that?
Apparently they are - from the site you referenced:
If you feel you've been a victim of Racial Steering, please contact HUD at 1-800-669-9777
Mom - I'm upset because my child was denied enrollment in a good school that is close to our house and instead sent to a far away school that has worse teachers. And it turns out, this assignment was made because of his race. If he were a different color, he would have been able to get a better education.
Liberal - Lady, you live in this nice area because of institutional racism, which if it didn't exist, you would apparently be able to afford an even better house, but anyway, you living in this area means that somebody who lives in another area doesn't live here, so we're going to send your kid to another area and bring a kid from that area here. That way, we compensate for all of the unfair conditions that exist in the universe, and bring about a little something we like to call social justice.
Mom - But that's not fair, we bought this house, we pay high property taxes, we have a right to send our kid to the school by our house.
Liberal - Lady, you know what's not fair? Real estate agents show blacks houses where other blacks live. Try that one on for size. Listen, you may think that you are being harmed by this decision, but I'm smarter than you are, and I know that's not the case. Sure your kid may not be able to add fractions, but maybe then he'll be able to become a critical thinker and realize how much he has benefited from institutionalized racism, which again, if it didn't exist, he would be even better off. What I'm trying to say is that I know what's best, not only for your child, but for all of society. So just back off and let the experts run things lady.
Mom - That just doesn't seem fair. The kids at that school hardly learn anything.
Liberal - Well why don't you get off your lazy butt and do something about it. You haven't demonstrated that you care at all, so I'm not going to listen to you.
RSWB: You missed the point--please don't sound-bite like that. I was responding to your point that the government shouldn't tinker in people's free choices to live in racially segregated communities. I was illustrating that the free choice you refer to doesn't exist.
You respond with this snide comment. It doesn't change the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that there is strong promotion of racially segregated neighborhoods and attempts to promote and capitalize off of people's paranoia about living in mixed communities.
Glock: I have a great deal of respect for you, but I have a similar issue with you: People seem to be content to split hairs over liberal and conservative ideology without addressing the key issues.
Let me put it bluntly: It is irrelevant to the children who are housed in utterly segregated schools in the current era whether or not the segregation is directly or indirectly government supported. The only difference to them is that they get a few days a year to celebrate the Brown decision--a decision that has little or no effect on their daily reality.
It really doesn't matter if you are turning them back at the school house gate or using other means, if there is no educational access and it's directly down racial lines, that's a problem.
We can argue tiny details than mean exactly nothing in terms of policy, but it's like arguing medical terminology while the patient is dying on the table.
Let's be real: AA and busing programs suck and have very limited potential to solve the problems of segregation and institutional racism. But they do something. And that's a lot more than the non-existent alternatives I've seen proposed on this site which basically amount to:
1. VOUCHERS!!!!!!!!!!! VOUCHERS!!!!!1
2. It's a tough problem that I don't care about
I guess Kanye West was right.
This is what I have a problem with:
The real problems are being ignored while everyone focuses on skin pigment which has little to do with what is holding students back.
Right there you are ignoring two basic points. First, actions like the consent decree do actually attempt to deal with the "real problems". I noticed you didn't bother to argue that the consent decree has been ineffective, but chose to skip that argument completely. Probably a smart move on your part since the gains undercut your primary argument: that these forced integration policies are useless.
Second, you continue to deny that institutional racism exists. Apparently since the government has made it illegal to have official laws on the books that enforce segregation there is now nothing left to fight for? I guess I can post finding after finding that shows that America's schools are getting more and more segregated and you'll continue to argue (with zero facts or findings as support) that this has to do with "individual choice"? As if all the black folks are perfectly happy to live in the hood. Hey! That's their individual choice?
Your argument has fundamental flaws. First, you refuse to acknowledge that forced integration has had a positive effect. You want to argue that it is benign, at best, but you have done zero homework on this and have nothing to support this notion besides your continually stating it is true. Second, you refuse to acknowledge that institutional racism exists even though, again, you have no proof or evidence to show this is true.
Man: I want my kid to go to a top high school.
Adam: I like to make up insulting stories as strawmen.
Man: There's one white kid in our entire school. One of 2,300.
Adam: What are you some crazy social justice person, I don't believe in taxation.
Father: They gave us vouchers, but the top schools just raised their prices.
Adam: I hate critical thinking. Also, sometimes I poop in my pants. I can't get a date on a Friday night. My opinions are like, uh well, their AWESOME! Also I sometimes stomp on kittens just to see them die.
Father: You are a wonderful man, let's hook up!
I was illustrating that the free choice you refer to doesn't exist. You respond with this snide comment.
It was not a snide comment at all. If the free choice for housing does not exist, lets fix that. And apparently, the federal gov't is working on it. I think we should correct the problem, as opposed to conceding the problem and "fixing" the symptom (racially imbalanced schools due to racially imbalanced neighborhoods). If there is an instance of racial discrimination in the housing market, or in school discipline, or in admittance into school gifted programs, lets punish the responsible person(s).
We have been "fixing" the problem in a deliberate way (you know, the foot-dragging that your cronies have been pushing) for the last four decades. That's not acceptable.
The thing is, I'm just not really ready to believe that you are in favor of equal opportunity, fair housing or school integration. I mean I'm not calling you a liar--I do think in theory you like these ideas, but you are uninterested in actually fighting for any of the reforms that would promote any of these concepts in a real way.
I have yet to meet an anti-affirmative action proponent from the right who actually is ready to address the needs that you refer to. I'm looking forward to meeting the first, but I have been for awhile...
The thing is, I'm just not really ready to believe that you are in favor of equal opportunity, fair housing or school integration.
Gosh, thanks.
My thing is, I don't know that you are willing to recognize the negative effects of the current "solutions", effects unrelated to people being racist.
People don't like being told that can't go to the school next door. And so, if they have the means to do so, they just might up and move to a school district more hospitable to their desires. Does this make the old school district more or less racially balanced? Does this provide more or less funds for the old district?
Xian, I appreciate your critical thinking. You have a great ability to discuss the issues in a thoughtful way without making up childish insults.
Can you tell me what part of my transcript did not accurately reflect the views of those written on this very thread? I'll revise it to be more accurate.
It seems like you're saying since there is no such thing as truly free choice, it's ok for the government to make choices for people - so long as they are choices that you deem to be beneficial for society.
Do you at least recognize that the recent SCOTUS decision was a good application of the law as it is today? Why don't you campaign to change the law to allow the government to use race as a factor in how people are treated?
Right there you are ignoring two basic points. First, actions like the consent decree do actually attempt to deal with the "real problems". I noticed you didn't bother to argue that the consent decree has been ineffective, but chose to skip that argument completely. Probably a smart move on your part since the gains undercut your primary argument: that these forced integration policies are useless.
Gains? Perhaps I do need some enlightening on the subject then. I was given the strong impression by all sides involved that there haven't been any gains. Perhaps I just had a very wrong impression. Please, by all means, if the consent decree has helped improve schools that were poorly performing before to improve, I'd love to hear about it. Perhaps I'm just woefully misguided.
Second, you continue to deny that institutional racism exists.
I did? Or are you referring to my comment that this isn't the same as the Deep South government institutionalized segregation of the past? Institutional racism does exist. It's not as prevalent, but it's still there. It's less in the open and more in the subtleties and still needs to be weeded out of many places. It isn't in every nook and crannie but it's in a lot more corners than most people would like to admit.
Apparently since the government has made it illegal to have official laws on the books that enforce segregation there is now nothing left to fight for?
I guess you got that out of my comments stating that there was still a lot more work to be done? Just because I think that you guys are trying to rehash an old fight and kick a dead horse doesn't mean I don't support tackling what I feel are new and important issues that I point out time and time again need desperate attention.
I guess I can post finding after finding that shows that America's schools are getting more and more segregated and you'll continue to argue (with zero facts or findings as support) that this has to do with "individual choice"? As if all the black folks are perfectly happy to live in the hood. Hey! That's their individual choice?
As if they (blacks) were the only ones making the choices here or even had the most powerful choices to make considering their unfortunate predisposition to be among lower socioeconomic classes. The choices involved are also those of poor whites, middle class whites, middle class blacks, rich whites and blacks, developers, private entrepreneurs, churches, etc that also go into community level decisions even before you bring in the politicians and government yahoos. Do you think the people with the least clout, those of the lower socioeconomic classes are going to negotiate themselves the best perks out of the deal in that pack of wolves? Probably not. And areas hardest hit will be ignored by all. While an already nice street corner elsewhere will get a fountain. It's not just blacks choices I'm talking about. I'm talking about the choices of the people who refuse to move there, the people who have no choice but to move there because it is the cheapest place to live, the people who choose to ignore it because they aren't economically viable, the people who choose to flee it as soon as they can afford to because they see no hope in fixing it, and so on and so on.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The recent court ruling basically comes down to this... is it right for the government to force their educational priorities on the taxpayer? The answer in our constitutional system is no. People will move to where the good schools are, so busing was implemented. So rich moved even farther away or went to private schools. This means lots of money and support started flowing from the public school system. Was their intention racist? No, that's just a silly stereotype and characiterature designed solely to demean and serve as a rhetorical club for people who simply can't find an intelligent argument. Parents want good schools and that's where they will send their children. Are there some racists, sure, but that I believe is the exception, not the rule. The "ism" involved, if anything, is "moneyism", namely, rich people want to be around rich people and think poor people have something wrong with them. We can parse that to be simplistic like minorities are poor so therefore its racist, but again, that's just simple-minded.
The fact is, you can't force people to do what they don't want to do except in very narrow cases. If you want truly integrated schools, you'd need to ban private schools and basically ban property rights and outright order people to live where they are told. Or you can create an educational system that provides exceptional education and "they will come". A system without competition rarely is excellent. Even then, you'd have imperfect integration, but it would likely be better than it is now. Few people (albeit some) would avoid a school simply because of racial makeup. Parents want an excellent education across the board, and if you have an excellent school accessible to anyone regardless of financial means, you'd have a better integrated school. Just telling parents to suck it down doesn't work.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
It's not just blacks choices I'm talking about. I'm talking ab