PDA

View Full Version : Court limits schools considering race



avatar4321
06-28-2007, 12:29 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_schools_race



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected integration plans in two major public school districts but left the door open for the limited use of race to achieve diversity in schools.

The decision in cases affecting how students are assigned to schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it further restricted how public school systems may attain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. The court's four liberal justices dissented.

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts said.

Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy would not go as far as the other four conservative justices, saying in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school plans designed to achieve diversity.

To the extent that Roberts' opinion could be interpreted to foreclose the use of race in any circumstance, Kennedy said, "I disagree with that reasoning."

"A district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population," Kennedy said. "Race may be one component of that diversity."

He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by the other liberals on the court, said Roberts' opinion undermined the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

"To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown," Breyer said.

While Roberts said the court was being faithful to the Brown decision, Justice John Paul Stevens in a separate dissent called the chief justice's reliance on Brown to rule against integration "a cruel irony."

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, wrote a separate opinion endorsing the ruling and taking issue with the dissenters' view of the Brown case.

"What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today," Thomas said. "The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students' race. Because 'our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,' such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional."

The two school systems in Thursday's decisions employ slightly different methods of taking students' race into account when determining which schools they will attend.

Federal appeals courts had upheld both plans after some parents sued. The Bush administration took the parents' side, arguing that racial diversity is a noble goal but can be sought only through race-neutral means.

The Louisville case grew out of complaints from several parents whose children were not allowed to attend the schools of their choice. Crystal Meredith, a white, single mother, sued after the school system turned down a request to transfer her 5-year-old son Joshua Ryan McDonald, to a school closer to home.

Louisville's schools spent 25 years under a court order to eliminate the effects of state-sponsored segregation. After a federal judge freed the Jefferson County, Ky., school board, which encompasses Louisville, from his supervision, the board decided to keep much of the court-ordered plan in place to prevent schools from re-segregating.

The lawyer for the Louisville system called the plan a success story that enjoys broad community support, including among parents of white and black students.

Attorney Teddy Gordon, who argued that the Louisville system's plan was discriminatory, said Thursday, "Clearly, we need better race-neutral alternatives. Instead of spending zillions of dollars around the country to place a black child next to a white child, let's reduce class size. All the schools are equal. We will no longer accept that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable."

Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson said he was disappointed with the ruling because Louisville's system had provided "a quality education for all students and broken down racial barriers" for 30 years.

He said he was confident school leaders would come up with effective new guidelines.

The Seattle school district said it used race as one among many factors and relied on it only at the end of a lengthy process in allocating students among the city's high schools. Seattle suspended its program after parents sued.

Kathleen Brose, mother of a white Seattle student who sued the district, said she felt vindicated by the decision. "We've never said we didn't like diversity," Brose said. "We're against discrimination. ... There's just other things they can do without discriminating."

The opinion was the first on the divisive issue since 2003, when a 5-4 ruling upheld the limited consideration of race in college admissions to attain a diverse student body. Since then, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who approved of the limited use of race, retired. Her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito was in the majority that struck down the school system plans in Kentucky and Washington.

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.

I liked what Roberts and Thomas has to say.

Hagbard Celine
06-28-2007, 12:42 PM
Are they going to apply these freedom-limiting standards to All-Black or All-Muslim schools too?

Monkeybone
06-28-2007, 12:57 PM
what do you mean Hag? like not allow them? cause i thought that they meant that they can't make the kids go to schools across town becasue of race....stupid reading comprehension

Hagbard Celine
06-28-2007, 01:22 PM
what do you mean Hag? like not allow them? cause i thought that they meant that they can't make the kids go to schools across town becasue of race....stupid reading comprehension

C'mon man. I didn't read that thing! It's too long. I'm at work. It needs to be a blurb, not a novel. Otherwise I'm just going to read the title and make a comment based on that.

Monkeybone
06-28-2007, 03:12 PM
:laugh2: oh my bad. my work is slow enough that it lets me read it :cheers2:

Kathianne
06-28-2007, 03:16 PM
C'mon man. I didn't read that thing! It's too long. I'm at work. It needs to be a blurb, not a novel. Otherwise I'm just going to read the title and make a comment based on that.

Affirmative action cannot apply to public schools, sorta. ;)

Black Lance
06-28-2007, 03:22 PM
C'mon man. I didn't read that thing! It's too long. I'm at work. It needs to be a blurb, not a novel. Otherwise I'm just going to read the title and make a comment based on that.

At issue was whether or not the government can require students to go to certain schools, usually a long-distance away from their homes, because of their race. Advocates of these policies say they promote integration by mixing the ethnicities of students, whereas detractors say it is unfair to make school assignments based on race. The court in this case, in keeping with an emerging trend on their part of reducing the scope of legalized racism in education, has adopted the later argument.

Hagbard Celine
06-28-2007, 03:33 PM
At issue was whether or not the government can require students to go to certain schools, usually a long-distance away from their homes, because of their race. Advocates of these policies say they promote integration by mixing the ethnicities of students, whereas detractors say it is unfair to make school assignments based on race. The court in this case, in keeping with an emerging trend on their part of reducing the scope of legalized racism in education, has adopted the later argument.

The former argument amounts to nothing short of social engineering.

Black Lance
06-28-2007, 04:54 PM
The former argument amounts to nothing short of social engineering.

Correct.

Hagbard Celine
06-28-2007, 05:04 PM
Correct.

I know :poke:

Abbey Marie
06-28-2007, 05:42 PM
The Louisville case grew out of complaints from several parents whose children were not allowed to attend the schools of their choice. Crystal Meredith, a white, single mother, sued after the school system turned down a request to transfer her 5-year-old son Joshua Ryan McDonald, to a school closer to home.

I just read on CNN.com that this child endured a 3 hour bus ride every day.

Yurt
06-28-2007, 07:47 PM
What's interesting is that the court allowed more leeway in "Michigan" for higher education. It shows again the complexity of our legal system.

My favorite line from the case today:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts wrote.

Yurt
06-28-2007, 07:49 PM
I just read on CNN.com that this child endured a 3 hour bus ride every day.

Nothing like forced integration to bring the people together

Black Lance
06-28-2007, 07:54 PM
Check out these comments from the Democratic candidates for President. Classic race baiting.



WASHINGTON - The struggles of the nation's blacks — a loyal Democratic voting bloc — topped the agenda Thursday as the party's eight presidential candidates gathered for their third primary debate.

The debate at Howard University was set to begin just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against public school programs aimed at achieving racial diversity, a certain topic for the event.

The Democrats decried the ruling, saying it turned back the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said as president, she would "fight to restore Brown's promise." Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said it was "wrong-headed." Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said the decision "will add to the resegregation that is already occurring in our nation's schools."

John Edwards said the decision showed what is at stake in the presidential race.

"The Supreme Court is on the ballot in this next election, and the American people can stop this radical shift or lock it in for years to come," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said.

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said the decision is another example why he opposed President Bush's two nominees to the Supreme Court, including the current chief justice, John Roberts. "The personal liberties of every American would be threatened even more if another conservative is allowed to serve on the Robert's court," Biden said.

Also scheduled to participate in the debate were New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

Moderating the debate was Tavis Smiley, who said he wanted to steer the conversation to issues raised in his book, "The Covenant with Black America." The 90-minute event was to be broadcast live on public television.

The debate was an opportunity for Obama, who got mixed reviews from his first two debate performances, to stand out and share a bond with the audience. He is in a tight contest for the black vote with Clinton, who benefits from good will for her husband among blacks.

Edwards is trying to make gains. His campaign put out a memo Thursday showing how he is addressing Smiley's 10 covenants, including health care, education, criminal justice, police accountability, housing and voting rights.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only black governor, was to make opening remarks and introduce the candidates. He has yet to endorse a candidate; many are seeking his support.


You heard it from Hillary Clinton first folks, if school children don't have to ride three hours to get to school everyday because of their race, then the promise of Brown v. Board is dead.

Yurt
06-28-2007, 08:01 PM
Check out these comments from the Democratic candidates for President. Classic race baiting.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said as president, she would "fight to restore Brown's promise." Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said it was "wrong-headed." Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said the decision "will add to the resegregation that is already occurring in our nation's schools."

John Edwards said the decision showed what is at stake in the presidential race.

"The Supreme Court is on the ballot in this next election, and the American people can stop this radical shift or lock it in for years to come," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said.


You heard it from Hillary Clinton first folks, if school children don't have to ride three hours to get to school everyday because of their race, then the promise of Brown v. Board is dead.


What is wrong with these people? Are they in such dire need of votes that they are whoring themselves to some screwed up ideology? Brown was about "allowing" blacks to enter "white" schools, NOT about FORCING people to attend a school just to have some numerical ratio. So long as no public school can "exclude" someone solely on race, brown stands.

These people honestly have no clue. It is perverse how so many dem judges try to legislate from the bench in such a dishonorable fashion and insult our constitution. What is even more disgusting is that both Hitlery and Slickwards have law degrees and are members of a state bar

:puke3:

Abbey Marie
06-28-2007, 08:11 PM
John Edwards is 100% correct. The Surpeme Court, and therefore the laws of this land, even to the point of usurping Congress' Constitutionally-derived powers, is on the ballot in 2008. As it always is.
For this one paramount reason, it is imperative to vote in a true conservative.

Yurt
06-28-2007, 08:20 PM
John Edwards is 100% correct. The Surpeme Court, and therefore the laws of this land, even to the point of usurping Congress' Constitutionally-derived powers, is on the ballot in 2008. As it always is.
For this one paramount reason, it is imperative to vote in a true conservative.

And with our checks and balances government, how do we avoid this?

Abbey Marie
06-28-2007, 08:24 PM
And with our checks and balances government, how do we avoid this?

Avoid what exactly?

Yurt
06-28-2007, 08:28 PM
Avoid what exactly?

The Supreme Court being on the ballot.

Abbey Marie
06-28-2007, 08:31 PM
The Supreme Court being on the ballot.

The point is, we can't avoid it. Whomever we elect, will nominate according to their agenda. Those 9 justices have so much power that, IMO, the type of person the Prez will nominate is the most important reason to vote for a candidate.

avatar4321
06-28-2007, 09:08 PM
And with our checks and balances government, how do we avoid this?

By electing conservative presidents who appoint conservative judges who arent activists.

Yurt
06-28-2007, 09:09 PM
The point is, we can't avoid it. Whomever we elect, will nominate according to their agenda. Those 9 justices have so much power that, IMO, the type of person he/she will nominate it is the most important reason to vote for a candidate.

I understand that, but with our checks and balance type government, how do we put an end to this? I have thought this over thoroughly and IMHO, it seems that with a "checks" and "balance" type system, the system must necessarily do just that, check and balance. To me though, I don't see the balance, I only see the proverbial check. As you say, who we elect most likely decides the "slant" (should be none, but we are human) of the court. How then do we stop this the slant? The other branch must approve, so ok, we have a check. But it seems that it is a rubber stamped check. And then, here is the kicker, when the senate actually gets "nasty" about a nominee, the party lines foam at the mouth.

And around the circle goes.

My point is:

Is the checks and balance system working?

Yurt
06-28-2007, 09:11 PM
By electing conservative presidents who appoint conservative judges who arent activists.

You do know that some very conservative justices have been accused of just that...

Edit:

And btw, you are essentially abolishing the three branch government, for all I have to do is vote "conservative"

Abbey Marie
06-28-2007, 10:44 PM
I understand that, but with our checks and balance type government, how do we put an end to this? I have thought this over thoroughly and IMHO, it seems that with a "checks" and "balance" type system, the system must necessarily do just that, check and balance. To me though, I don't see the balance, I only see the proverbial check. As you say, who we elect most likely decides the "slant" (should be none, but we are human) of the court. How then do we stop this the slant? The other branch must approve, so ok, we have a check. But it seems that it is a rubber stamped check. And then, here is the kicker, when the senate actually gets "nasty" about a nominee, the party lines foam at the mouth.

And around the circle goes.

My point is:

Is the checks and balance system working?

I don't think the main problem is that nomines are chosen politically or that they are rubber-stamped by Congress. It is virtually impossible to find someone who doesn't have some political agenda, anyway. The main problem IMO is that the court can overturn Congress for political reasons; backing into opinions by finding Constitutional protections that just aren't there. And to change that, I guess would take nothing short of overturning Marbury v Madison.

Losing the "appointed for life" status might help somewhat, but with Chief Justice Marshall's judicial review as law, combined with all-too-human political and social agendas, the problem will always exist.

Kathianne
06-29-2007, 03:55 AM
I understand that, but with our checks and balance type government, how do we put an end to this? I have thought this over thoroughly and IMHO, it seems that with a "checks" and "balance" type system, the system must necessarily do just that, check and balance. To me though, I don't see the balance, I only see the proverbial check. As you say, who we elect most likely decides the "slant" (should be none, but we are human) of the court. How then do we stop this the slant? The other branch must approve, so ok, we have a check. But it seems that it is a rubber stamped check. And then, here is the kicker, when the senate actually gets "nasty" about a nominee, the party lines foam at the mouth.

And around the circle goes.

My point is:

Is the checks and balance system working?
I think balance ebbs and flows. The Constitution started out favoring the Legislative branch, with an enormously popular president. By the time Jefferson leaves office, judicial reform is established and a war with the Barbary Pirates diverts power from the legislature to the other two branches.

The Civil War greatly enhances presidential power, though the aftermath curbs it somewhat. WWII again makes for a strong president, but do not forget that just before the SCOTUS was to FDR enough a thorn, that he considered the court packing scheme.

We are in a period and have been, when the executive branch is trying to wrest power from Legislative, taken during the post Vietnam/Watergate era. They are now trying to get some back.

We always tend to see things as 'checks', but I suppose to a real degree it has to do with one's perspective on an issue. I saw today's immigration bill failure as a plus. Not that I don't want reform, just the way it had been created and what it would have done, seemed worse.

Yurt
06-29-2007, 09:42 AM
Good points K and Abby :salute:

Little-Acorn
06-29-2007, 02:02 PM
The Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to school integration efforts today, ruling that the Constitution forbids assigning students to particular schools because of their race, even when the goal is campus diversity.

The article gets it wrong again - unsurprising for a paper out of San Francisco.

The Supreme Court didn't deal a blow to school integration efforts. The Constitution did that, when the 14th amendment made it illegal to discriminate based on race or color. The Supremes merely pointed it out, as is their legitimate job.

What's the problem? You don't like it when you're not allowed to use race or color as a factor, one way or another? Then amend the Constitution. Right now it says you're SOL, and that's not the Supreme Court's fault.

The article author sounds similar to a bank robber who says cops are depriving him of his "right" to take money out of the vault by force. They're not doing it, the law is doing it. They are merely upholding the law, as is their job. And the Supremes are upholding the law too, just as they should.

It's up to us (actually 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states) to change it if we don't like it. But why are you complaining about the Supreme Court? They've done exactly what they should (for a change): uphold the law as we, the people, wrote it. I wouldn't have them do anything else.

Don't like it? Get your amendment going. And if 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states don't agree with you, I guess you're out of luck. That's the Constitutional republic we live in. And just maybe, 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states are wiser than you are in this matter. That's why the Constitution specifies those numbers to amend it - the Framers figured that such a large, diverse group would come to the right decision more often than a few misguided hotheads would. Maybe you'd like to pick another form of govt - there are plenty around the world to choose from. Let me know what you find.

But until then, why criticize the Supreme Court for doing their job correctly?