There certainly is a lot of handwringing (on the part of Democratic partisans, including the Democratic presidential hopefuls) and chest-thumping (on the part of Republican partisans on the recent decision by the Supreme Court on the Seattle and Louisville school racial balancing programs. The New York Times condemned the decision as an abrogation of Brown v. Board.
The best analysis I’ve seen so far in the blogosphere has been from SCOTUSBlog and Is That Legal?. On SCOTUSBLOG, Hans Bader outlines how the decision is good law. At Is That Legal? Eric Muller praises the decision as “exactly right” noting that the Seattle school system in particular was not interested in promoting diversity in its schools but in promoting “diversity”
It appears that what Seattle was really after was not “diversity,” but ensuring that no school would be excessively non-white. Perhaps there is a case to be made that compelling benefits flow from having adequate numbers of white students in all of a district’s schools (as distinguished from the benefits that flow from true “diversity.”) But I don’t think the school district made that case — and in any event, I’m pretty skeptical of the claim.
I honestly don’t know what to believe. I suspect there’s a solid pragmatic reason that the Seattle schools would want to be able to do exactly what Eric suggests they’re trying to do but I’m not as convinced that it would be good law (the five justices apparently didn’t think so) or even good public policy. I’d appreciate being directed to any analyses that hone in on the law rather than on whatever outcome the author prefers. That’s what I’ve been missing in much of the analysis. I found this particularly obnoxious in the comments I’ve seen televised by the Democratic presidential hopefuls last night. If I ran the zoo I’d’ve asked of the sitting senators among them “What legislation have you proposed or will you propose to remedy the injustice you see here?” Not that I’d expect to get an answer.
http://www.slate.com/id/2168856/entry/2169343/
Thanks, Soccer Dad. I like it.
Not that its a blog post, but Richard Dolan (scroll down) comments at Althouse with a pretty succinct take.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/06/schools-failed-to-prove-that-there-is.html#comments
You’re right, it’s a solid comment which, I hasten to note, ultimately comes down on the side I allude to at the end of my post above: well, Senator, what legislative remedy do you propose?
As I understand it, I think one of the problems though, is that the Kennedy and Roberts block have decided that the courts ultimatey get to decide. Sure, a lawmaker can pass an integration policy, but the courts will stringently examine it to determine whether it is narrowly tailored and whether suitable alternatives have been first explored and whether there are enough studies and evidence to back the program. As a lawmker, I’m not sure it’s worth the hassle. And I’m not sure Kennedy gives much practical guidance to encourage it either.
One of the interesting points in Thomas’ opinion was that Seattle operates an all-Black accadamy that achieves higher than average test scores. He points this out to show that racial imbalance does not equate to lesser achievement.
To me it raised an alternative set of concerns. Under Thomas’ reasoning and probably Kennedy’s, such a school is clearly unconstitutional. Yet, I believe there are some studies that have shown some success with such experiments. Along these lines, my local school district plans to open an all Black boy’s school next year; it can do so because its under a desegregation order.
Here’s an article that addresses my issues and bridges to Soccor Dad’s link. http://www.slate.com/id/2169443/