Supreme Court Reconsiders School Segregation

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>

Supreme Court Looks at Race and Schools</font size></center>



SCOTUS_SCHOOLS_RACE.sff_WX106_20061202133204.jpg

Sisters Audreyanna, 14, left, and Cassandra Cosby, 16,
discuss desegregation at a high school football game
Friday, Sept, 22, 2006, at Central High School Stadium
in Louisville, Ky. The sisters say the idea of mixing
students from around the county in different schools
sounds like a good idea. They said school integration
provides a social education along with an academic one.
Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled is to hear
oral arguments on lawsuits brought by parents in Louisville
and Seattle who challenged voluntary school district policies
that use race to help determine where children go to school.
(AP Photo/Brian Bohannon)


By MARK SHERMAN
Associaed Press
Dec 4, 9:29 AM (ET)


WASHINGTON (AP) - Pro-affirmative action demonstrators bearing "Fight For Equality" placards descended on the Supreme Court Monday as justices prepared to hear fresh arguments in cases testing when race may be used as a basis for assigning students to public schools.

Parents in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle are challenging school assignment plans that factor in a student's race in an effort to have individual school populations approximate the racial makeup of the entire system. Federal appeals courts have upheld both programs.

On the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court, hundreds of pro-affirmative action demonstrators marched to dramatize their issue. A parent-teachers group from Chicago and several civil rights groups were among those sponsoring the demonstration.

The school policies in contention Monday are designed to keep schools from segregating along the same lines as neighborhoods. In Seattle, only high school students are affected. Louisville's plan applies systemwide.

"The plan has prevented the resegregation that inevitably would result from the community's segregated housing patterns and that most likely would produce many schools that might be perceived as 'failing,'" the Seattle school district said in its brief to the high court.

The Bush administration has taken the side of the parents who are suing the school districts, much as it intervened on behalf of college and graduate students who challenged affirmative action policies before the Supreme Court in 2003.

In 2003, the court upheld race-conscious admissions in higher education in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor, however, has since retired and been replaced by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Lawyers on both sides of the issue presume that Alito is inclined to oppose the school plans.

About 400 of the nation's 15,000 school districts are under court orders to desegregate. It is believed that hundreds more voluntarily take race into account.

There are no firm figures, although the Pacific Legal Foundation of Sacramento, Calif., said up to 1,000 districts voluntarily use race as a factor in school assignments, drawing boundaries, deciding where to locate new buildings and in other ways. The foundation opposes race-based policies.

Seattle has tried for years to achieve racial diversity in its schools in the face of persistent segregated housing patterns. The city's schools have never been subject to court order. Seattle put the assignment system at issue in place in 1998, but suspended it after parents sued.

The Louisville schools, with a history of state-imposed segregation, were under federal court supervision for 25 years. The Jefferson County Board of Education, which encompasses Louisville,came up with its own plan to maintain integrated schools shortly thereafter.

But the policy denigrates children's self-worth by color-coding them throughout their school years, said the legal brief for Crystal Meredith, the Louisville parent who sued after her son was denied his first choice of which school to attend.

The cases are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 05-908; and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.


http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061204/D8LQ31V83.html
 
I heard about this on NPR. What sad about the whole situation is that the system is working. Grades for the entire system are up. Kids are happy. Parents all over the state have a choices. More choices then the majority of public school systems. I think it is noble what the kentuky school system was trying to do. They were attempting to have ACTUAL racial equality in each one of their schools. Meaning if there are 100kids in the system 80 white 20 black every school in the system will be 80% white 20% black.

Most states have systems where the public school the child attends is based on where he lives. Consequently if you live in a poor area you go to a poor school. In kentuky you could pick almost any school in your county you wanted your child to go too.

What it is clear here (From the chicago group and the presidents administration jumping on the band wagon) is that conservatives care more about defeating affirmative action then they do about school choice and positive education outcomes. THe kentucky system is succedding in doing what the president claimed he wanted to do. Leaving no child behind.

To me this is not an affirmative action issue. Kentucky was couragous in their attempts to present true equality in their allocation of resources. They wanted to bring all their schools up. I find it very sad that in a country where the public education system is clearly failing our students our government would fight a system that is working and providing positive outcomes for students. T
 
VegasGuy said:
Wait until the new school tax funding codes kick in that everybody voted on.

-VG
??? Haven't heard about "tax funding codes" ... what are they ???

QueEx
 
Temujin said:
I heard about this on NPR. What sad about the whole situation is that the system is working. Grades for the entire system are up. Kids are happy. Parents all over the state have a choices. More choices then the majority of public school systems. I think it is noble what the kentuky school system was trying to do. They were attempting to have ACTUAL racial equality in each one of their schools. Meaning if there are 100kids in the system 80 white 20 black every school in the system will be 80% white 20% black.

Most states have systems where the public school the child attends is based on where he lives. Consequently if you live in a poor area you go to a poor school. In kentuky you could pick almost any school in your county you wanted your child to go too.

What it is clear here (From the chicago group and the presidents administration jumping on the band wagon) is that conservatives care more about defeating affirmative action then they do about school choice and positive education outcomes. THe kentucky system is succedding in doing what the president claimed he wanted to do. Leaving no child behind.

To me this is not an affirmative action issue. Kentucky was couragous in their attempts to present true equality in their allocation of resources. They wanted to bring all their schools up. I find it very sad that in a country where the public education system is clearly failing our students our government would fight a system that is working and providing positive outcomes for students. T

Well at least Kentucky is doing it's best to keep that promise...Suprising that in many publications, the states that are rated the highest in public education are in the North...Or is it?
 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6567985

This the link to the NPR story. They also have audio links to the story I heard on the radio. They had another story on the case this afternoon.

They have a similar program in Seattle that is also up for review. Seattle was never under a court order to desegragate but based on housing patterns there schools systems were in effect segregated because kids were forced to go to school where they lived. Seattle gave parents a choice but they put "tiebreaker" measures in place to assure racial equality.

What I find really crazy is these cases came up because a couple white parents didn't get their first choice of schools. What is crazy is if they win they may elliminate the possibility for a choice at all. So I guess they would rather no choice then their second choice.
 
Temujin said:
What I find really crazy is these cases came up because a couple white parents didn't get their first choice of schools.
Didn't Alan Bakke make a similar argument in Board of Regents? - essentially saying that he didn't get into his "First Choice" because minority candidates, with what he argued were lesser numbers than his, that were accepted ahead of him ???

QueEx
 
Well, as a resident of Seattle, I can tell you all that this is a bad idea for up here. As was stated earlier, this is more about chipping away at affirmative action. Seattle has a less than 8% black population. This shouldn't even be an issue here yet a few racist parents are mad because they are inconvienced so they take it to the courts and the ever-so-oppressive white populus supports it. Washington state shouldn't even be used as an example because its one of the whitest states in the country populationwise. This is just another way for white upperclass to put pressure on the system to give them what they want - their children in "their" schools. They are trying to take us back to the 60s.
 
QueEx said:
Didn't Alan Bakke make a similar argument in Board of Regents? - essentially saying that he didn't get into his "First Choice" because minority candidates, with what he argued were lesser numbers than his, that were accepted ahead of him ???

QueEx

The difference is in Bakke the policy of the board of regents didn't create a choice for Bakke that he didn't have before. He was denied access to a particular university because of his race. In this case the policy the plaintiffs are trying to overturn created a choice for them that they never had before.


The key diference is the change in policy gave the parents a choice were they didn't have one before. Previously in Seattle and Kentucky and most jurisdictions nationwide children don't have a choice where they go to public school. Where they live determines what school they attend. Here the policy gave the parents a choice. Once given a choice (when before the didn't have one) they are now upset that they didn't get their first choice.

The point I was trying to make is if the policy is reversed they may not have a choice at all. If the plaintiffs win their son won't be admited to his parents choice the policy will be found unconsitutional and they may go back to the old policy of attend where you live. That policy didn't give parents a choice. That's why I find it so ironic that the pro school choice administration would object to policy giving a choice and using race as a factor only to achieve balance. It seems they would be happier with de facto segregation based on the ancient public school policy of "attend where you live".

I believe powell in Bakke said race can be a factor but only one in achieving balance.
The focus I believe of the policies in question was to achieve absolute balance and in this case race was not a determining factor in your choices of school it was only a factor in determining if you could go to your first choice or second choice. And in reality 95% of parents got their first choice of school.
 
Slo ya roll T; I know full well the difference between Bakke and these 2006 cases. I threw ya a bone: both instances have their roots in the notion of reversely discriminating against the majority by affirmative programs designed to enforce or bring about equality. Get it?

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
Slo ya roll T; I know full well the difference between Bakke and these 2006 cases. I threw ya a bone: both instances have their roots in the notion of reversely discriminating against the majority by affirmative programs designed to enforce or bring about equality. Get it?

QueEx

When you fight a policy of school choice because of supposed reverse discrimination it illustrates either a hypocrisy in the conservative ideology or a hirearchy of their agenda. Defeating affirmative action is more important then education and parental choice in public education apparently.

I truly wonder if the majority of anti-affirmative action voters would sacrifice school choice to defeat affirmative action in this limited circumstance.
 
Back
Top