Seattle SupremeSonics
UPDATE: Armen and I updated this several times below, but I want to move this one up top. I have read quite a bit today about the majority's strong refutation of race in schools, as well as Breyer's astute recognition of the "cruel irony" of using Brown to strike down integration programs.
But most commentators have recognized that Kennedy's concurrence is where the real action is. He left open the possibility of some uses of race in school decisions--such as in deciding where to build a new school. I'm a bit puzzled as to how his view that race may be "one component" of such decisions squares with his own dissent in Grutter, but am glad that he left the door open a bit by departing from the dogmatism of the majority opinion. His checks on the majority are small, but not insignificant, cracks in the door, and the onus is now on school boards and lower courts to figure out exactly what enters through that doorway, and what must remain on the outside. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the constitutional contours of that task are clearer today than they were yesterday.
I exchanged a couple of emails with Prof. Liu (who wrote an amicus in this case) earlier tonight, and he sent along a press release he had written, and was nice enough to let me post it here. I should also mention that Prof. Liu had very high praise for the concluding paragraphs of Breyer's dissent. I definitely agree--it's the type of lofty, slightly self-important language you expect from an opinion like this. It only takes a minute to read--the conclusion starts about p. 175 (here--careful, big file). Here is an excerpt from Prof. Liu's release:
“Today a five-Justice majority of the Court recognized that racial integration of public schools remains a compelling and enduring aspiration for our society. . . . Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion leaves open several avenues for race-conscious measures to achieve integration, including strategic attendance zoning and school siting decisions as well as magnet schools and special programs. The upshot is that the Court has sent school districts literally back to the drawing board to devise creative assignment plans to integrate our public schools.”
The Supreme Court's term is coming to a close, and the last batch of opinions should be out Thursday and Friday. The two school integration cases are expected Thursday.
I've been following the Seattle case pretty closely for about 2 years now, since it was at the Ninth Circuit, so I'm particularly interested in that case. I can't say I'm real sure what they're going to do with the two cases: a straight-up application of Grutter/Gratz? Split the baby (a la Grutter and Gratz--but who will swing both ways?)? Totally cut back on the use of race in public schools?
Regardless, they will probably be 5-4 decisions. As has already been noted by people much smarter than me, despite Roberts' promises of a more minimalist, conciliatory Court, this term has instead brought the most fractured (both left/right, and within the right as well) Court in recent memory. I can't imagine it will be anything different tomorrow.
At the risk of being irrelevant by 6 AM, I won't say anymore. Feel free to predict/discuss these cases and the rest of the Term, which has been pretty fascinating not only for the cases decided, but for what they may mean for the future (gulp). An update (from me or EW or Armen or whoever) will hopefully come tomorrow, BarBri permitting.
UPDATE 1 (by Armen): I initially created a post not having seen MP's post here. I will just add my own prediction.
Prediction: Seattle will be held unconstitutional. The plan just has too many flaws in it, each of which are fatal in a strict scrutiny analysis. Louisville I'm not so sure about. It hasn't even been 10 years since the courts lifted the consent decree. I have a weird feeling that Alito may either completely uphold Louisville's plan or at least provide a narrow concurrence that will be the controlling opinion. In either case, Kennedy will not be a "swing vote." He is pretty far to the right on AA cases.
Speaking of swing vote, please enjoy this clip from the Daily Show.
UPDATE 2 (by MP): And down goes the use of race in public schools. Both programs are declared unconstitutional, 5-4, in a combined opinion written by Roberts. The combined opinions are 185 pages long! Roberts' opinion apparently references Brown, and claims that this opinion is faithful to that case's legacy. The dissenters, needless to say, disagree with that notion.
Interestingly, Kennedy wrote a concurrence in which he says "that ending racial isolation may sometimes be a compelling interest in public education, and can be pursued with race as 'one component' of the plan to achieve racial diversity" (quoting SCOTUSblog). So does that become the controlling opinion? Aren't there 5 votes for allowing race as at least "one component"?
It will take awhile to sort all this out, and to read all those opinions, but the bottom line is that the use of race in public school assignments has been severely restricted, if not entirely prohibited.
UPDATE 3 (by MP): It just occurred to me that perhaps the most interesting thing up the opinions is that there is NOT a concurrence by either Scalia or Thomas. This means that you can get a pretty good idea of what Roberts' opinion says before you read it, because there would have been a concurrence if the opinion was anything less than a total repudiation of using race. Money quote from Roberts: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Update of Update 3: Thomas did write a concurrence. No one seems to be reporting it though. It is only a response to some points in Breyer's dissent. Otherwise, Thomas "wholly concur[s]" in Roberts' opinion.
UPDATE 4 (by Armen): As MP alludes above, the opinion is 4-1-4 with Kennedy controlling. He does not like the reasoning of Breyer or Roberts. In Choper's SCOTUS class this was precisely the outcome, although for slightly different reasons. Justices Kennedy refused to join the sweeping holding of the conservative four.
But most commentators have recognized that Kennedy's concurrence is where the real action is. He left open the possibility of some uses of race in school decisions--such as in deciding where to build a new school. I'm a bit puzzled as to how his view that race may be "one component" of such decisions squares with his own dissent in Grutter, but am glad that he left the door open a bit by departing from the dogmatism of the majority opinion. His checks on the majority are small, but not insignificant, cracks in the door, and the onus is now on school boards and lower courts to figure out exactly what enters through that doorway, and what must remain on the outside. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the constitutional contours of that task are clearer today than they were yesterday.
I exchanged a couple of emails with Prof. Liu (who wrote an amicus in this case) earlier tonight, and he sent along a press release he had written, and was nice enough to let me post it here. I should also mention that Prof. Liu had very high praise for the concluding paragraphs of Breyer's dissent. I definitely agree--it's the type of lofty, slightly self-important language you expect from an opinion like this. It only takes a minute to read--the conclusion starts about p. 175 (here--careful, big file). Here is an excerpt from Prof. Liu's release:
“Today a five-Justice majority of the Court recognized that racial integration of public schools remains a compelling and enduring aspiration for our society. . . . Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion leaves open several avenues for race-conscious measures to achieve integration, including strategic attendance zoning and school siting decisions as well as magnet schools and special programs. The upshot is that the Court has sent school districts literally back to the drawing board to devise creative assignment plans to integrate our public schools.”
****************************
The Supreme Court's term is coming to a close, and the last batch of opinions should be out Thursday and Friday. The two school integration cases are expected Thursday.
I've been following the Seattle case pretty closely for about 2 years now, since it was at the Ninth Circuit, so I'm particularly interested in that case. I can't say I'm real sure what they're going to do with the two cases: a straight-up application of Grutter/Gratz? Split the baby (a la Grutter and Gratz--but who will swing both ways?)? Totally cut back on the use of race in public schools?
Regardless, they will probably be 5-4 decisions. As has already been noted by people much smarter than me, despite Roberts' promises of a more minimalist, conciliatory Court, this term has instead brought the most fractured (both left/right, and within the right as well) Court in recent memory. I can't imagine it will be anything different tomorrow.
At the risk of being irrelevant by 6 AM, I won't say anymore. Feel free to predict/discuss these cases and the rest of the Term, which has been pretty fascinating not only for the cases decided, but for what they may mean for the future (gulp). An update (from me or EW or Armen or whoever) will hopefully come tomorrow, BarBri permitting.
UPDATE 1 (by Armen): I initially created a post not having seen MP's post here. I will just add my own prediction.
Prediction: Seattle will be held unconstitutional. The plan just has too many flaws in it, each of which are fatal in a strict scrutiny analysis. Louisville I'm not so sure about. It hasn't even been 10 years since the courts lifted the consent decree. I have a weird feeling that Alito may either completely uphold Louisville's plan or at least provide a narrow concurrence that will be the controlling opinion. In either case, Kennedy will not be a "swing vote." He is pretty far to the right on AA cases.
Speaking of swing vote, please enjoy this clip from the Daily Show.
UPDATE 2 (by MP): And down goes the use of race in public schools. Both programs are declared unconstitutional, 5-4, in a combined opinion written by Roberts. The combined opinions are 185 pages long! Roberts' opinion apparently references Brown, and claims that this opinion is faithful to that case's legacy. The dissenters, needless to say, disagree with that notion.
Interestingly, Kennedy wrote a concurrence in which he says "that ending racial isolation may sometimes be a compelling interest in public education, and can be pursued with race as 'one component' of the plan to achieve racial diversity" (quoting SCOTUSblog). So does that become the controlling opinion? Aren't there 5 votes for allowing race as at least "one component"?
It will take awhile to sort all this out, and to read all those opinions, but the bottom line is that the use of race in public school assignments has been severely restricted, if not entirely prohibited.
UPDATE 3 (by MP): It just occurred to me that perhaps the most interesting thing up the opinions is that there is NOT a concurrence by either Scalia or Thomas. This means that you can get a pretty good idea of what Roberts' opinion says before you read it, because there would have been a concurrence if the opinion was anything less than a total repudiation of using race. Money quote from Roberts: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Update of Update 3: Thomas did write a concurrence. No one seems to be reporting it though. It is only a response to some points in Breyer's dissent. Otherwise, Thomas "wholly concur[s]" in Roberts' opinion.
UPDATE 4 (by Armen): As MP alludes above, the opinion is 4-1-4 with Kennedy controlling. He does not like the reasoning of Breyer or Roberts. In Choper's SCOTUS class this was precisely the outcome, although for slightly different reasons. Justices Kennedy refused to join the sweeping holding of the conservative four.
Labels: Court Cases
posted by Max Power at 7:41 PM
22 Comments:
Both plans rejected 5-4.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Thank you, Justice Roberts, for distilling the basic intellectual incoherence of modern conservatism into one pithy sentence. Has there ever been a better example of the conservatives' facile treatment of language? That such a sentence could be written with a straight face shows just how triumphant the right has been in reshaping American language over the last 30 years.
As anyone who has taken Frickey's legislation knows, the meaning of "discriminate" is hardly uncontested. It has traditionally meant something again to "subordination" or "invidious distinction;" but the right has succeeded in making it akin to something like "distinguish" or "make a distinction."
And what impeccable timing for that transition! For the better part of 100 years, from the Civil War to Civil Right, conservatism -- in temperament if not in politics -- stood for the idea that blacks were inferior and needed disadvantageous treatment. Then, suddenly, when the force for civil rights becomes unstoppable in the 60s, conservatism discovers that what it meant along was that everyone is absolutely and unalterably equal -- and the government can't dare say otherwise.
But of course no one is fooled: the end result of both views is exactly the same in each era: against anything that would help blacks obtain true social equality.
That such a position can now be dressed up as "colorblindness" and read into the meaning or intent of the 14A -- by "originalists" no less!! (who have yet to so much as spill five drops of ink in any opinion in the last 30 years on what the Framers thought of the 14A -- turns it from irony into sick joke.
With that one sentence, judicial conservatism, like political conservatism, has finally surrendered all pretenses. For that, at last, we can be grateful.
Since Armen doesn't deem me worthy of editing privileges, I'll stick this here: Over at SCOTUS blog (www.scotusblog.com), Tom Goldstein has a great quick close-read on Kennedy's opinion, in which he strikingly embraces some of the ideas of Grutter, allowing use of "race-conscious measures" in a "general way" but only as a "last resort," going so far as to allow measures that are "informed by Grutter."
This seems a bit remarkable. Kennedy dissented in Grutter, and people who followed his opinions closely on this issue (I'm looking at you Armen & Max, but also Goodwin Liu and Walter Dellinger, so you're in good company) seemed confident he would side seamlessly with Scalia & Thomas, against all use of race.
So I'm curious, what do you guys think happened to cause the change of heart and Kennedy's warm embrace of Grutter? (The one answer not allowed is "stare decisis." Overturning a five year-old precedent didn't seem to bother him much a month ago in the partial-birth abortion case.) Is he simply reveling in his new role as the swing Justice? Did O'Connor send him some brownies and ask him pretty please to be nice to her baby? Does he want more New Yorker profiles about the inscrutable Anthony Kennedy (which are decidedly more generous than the New Republic profiles)? What say you, experts?
Hind sight is 20/20 EW, but in the SCOTUS class, the Justices Kennedy felt that his jurisprudence on race did not embrace a sweeping principle of equality divined from the 14A. They saw him more as a Justice Powell in Bakke. For that reason, they didn't join our majority opinion in Seattle (I was 1/2 of Justice Thomas). Justices Kennedy authored the opinion in Meredith which was much more limited than ours.
I suspect that's probably very close to the actual AMK. He felt in Grutter SDO was glossing over how the law school actually applied the program. So he was pissed off that they weren't looking at the particulars closely. That's my $0.02 while the moviefone guy is lecturing on civ pro.
One theory about Kennedy: because Kennedy's guiding star is his conception of his place in history, on this difficult issue, where the public mood is shifting and up for grabs, Kennedy is hedging for the sake of hedging.
Hah. We JUST discussed that.
Thanks for the prompt reporting, guys. Also, big up to Choper's seminar for the near-perfect prediction.
Generally I agree with anon 10:17 and I would add to the observation of the conservative legacy (not as the first person to do so) not only that conservatism has never contributed to any actual progress, but that the impact of our worst president ever on Supreme Court jurisprudence is now frighteningly real.
At least I have Bar/Bri to cheer me up.
Saying that "conservatism has never contributed to any actual progress," is like saying that "progressivism has never contributed to any acutal conservation." Of course, they're both literally true, but banally so as a matter of definition. More realisitically, we need to conserve the best aspects of our social insitutions and make progress on them as well.
10:17,
Your an idiot.
Your not a Boalt student are you?
Beat it 3:46. We're striving to be constructive in our discussions.
We're also striving toward proper apostrophe use. We've not quite arrived, but we can't up hope. You're dragging down the average, but that's how it goes.
Progressives have contributed to much conservation--national parks, aquatic habitat, endangered species... :)
Say bye-bye endangered species, btw.
Depressing, depressing, depressing.
Prof. Liu's legal strategy was brilliant. Too bad those darn conservative judicial activists weren't interested.
As an aside, has anyone checked out the easily overlooked retail setting case yet? I mean, I almost expect my right wing wingnuts and less nutty associates to forgo civil rights, campaign contribution limits, women's choice, and the spotted owl, but the economy? Is there an antitrust lawyer in the house, please?
CA and Congress should pass a law, fast, to preserve the Sherman Act. At least that's one area where a little political mobilization might actually work.
Oh, and get out your check books (or ATM cards, as it may be). We need a Dem in the white house and fast.
Glad you asked 1:01. The opinion in Leegin is actually right on point. My only complaint is that the four dissenters used the case to further the spat on stare decesis they are having from the other end-of-term cases (see Breyer's dissent, mostly snarky cross cites to Wisconsin RTL).
But no need to reach for your checkbook. This is a simple correction to a previously-stupid area of antitrust law. It would have been 9-0 but for the bad vibes at the Court.
And forgive me, but CA & Congress do not need to pass any new competition laws. We're finally getting the ones we have close to working order. Any new (often misguided) statutes will likely make matters turn worse.
Oh god, 3:46. I seriously hope that *you* are not a Boalt student. You may want to proofread what you write before you call people idiots.
Anyway, I actually agree with what 10:17 said. Jon Stewart made similar commentary on his show during the 2004 election. I can't remember how he phrased everything he said, but his point was that conservatives, along with the media, use catchy little phrases to describe an idea. The public starts using these phrases ("He's a flip-flop") and substitutes the catchy sayings for actual thought. These cutesy little phrases give conservatives a way to defend what they "think" without actually thinking about the issues and reality.
Tom, I appreciate your loyalty to the right, but I couldn't disagree with you more.
As the Leegin dissent points out, everything is going to get more expensive as a result of this case. This concern is hardly mere left-over snarkiness.
For those who haven't read this case yet, it basically provides wholesalers with a vehicle for vertical price fixing (wholesalers setting prices at the retail level). Rather than merely manipulating the prices of their own product at time of sale to retailers, vertical price setters sell their product with the caveat that retailers are restrained from selling below a minimum price line (ie, "X agrees to never sell our product for less than $Y amount.") This eliminates a certain amount of competitive pricing of goods at the retail level and inhibits free market competition. As a result, retail prices go up.
And, yes, the majority totally disregarded stare decisis to reach their conclusion--a fact that wouldn't be so annoying if it weren't for all their prior professions of bulwarky.
But the largest concern is the economy and here's what we can expect: the last time retail price maintenance was allowed on a state-by-state basis, those states that allowed it saw 19-27% increase in resale price compared to their counterparts that didn't allow it, according to the DOJ. (see Leegin dissent or Hearings on HR 2384 Sub Committees on Antitrust and Monopolies, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.122, 1975)
So, yes, we need a statute to fix this decision and not the other way around.
And I can appreciate Tom's desire for us to keep our checkbooks in our pockets, since he appears to be routing for a different team. While I respect you, Tom, the source of the comment only inspires me to donate double. I'll take my economy stable, thank you.
rooting. I mean rooting. Or routing, I suppose, in a social networking kind of way...
ouchy.
Please accept my profound apologies for being the second idiot speller on this string.
-9:40
10:17-
Although I may agree that the conservatives approach to 14th amend. jurisprudence does not actually serve the goals of the 14th amendment or Brown, I think it's hard to actually claim that their goal is to keep black people down. Firstly, that would make Thomas even more insane that he already obviously is. Secondly, it would ignore the overall tenor of their cases, which is simply to be formalistic for formalism's sake, which is a different and broader concept that interpretting the 14th amend. to keep black people down.
Similarly, I think the connection between modern conservatives on the court and those called conservatives prior to the civil rights movement is also weak. Just because they are called conservatives does not mean they are the same creature. As you recognize, the ideology is different, and conservatives of the past were more like liberals judges of today, willing to make non-textual decisions to advance substantive social policy goals, it's just the policy that is differnet. However, conservative policy has also drastically changed since then, as it had to since most of the important issues to "conservatives" of that day are essentially non-existant.
Lastly, the claim that there has been no originalist writing on the 14th amendment in 30 years is just patently false. Do you just not read Thomas decisions?
Having read the commentary around the case, but not having read the case itself, all this should be taken with a goodly sized grain of salt.
That said, where does this case leave current and future affirmative action programs?
Let me be really clear here. I support affirmative action programs and I think it's crazy to pull the plug on such programs some 15 or 20 years after they were instituted in the first place (and much less in respect to the current cases). That said, I wonder if this is the end of affirmative action.
First, there's this decision, which I simply can't read as anything other than an unequivocal defeat for the future of affirmative action programs in this country.
In Grutter, I think the Court basically said: "here's the perfect affirmative action program, follow these steps and it will be Constitutional." Now, to start, meeting that standard was really, really tough (See, e.g., Gratz). And I think most people sensibly presumed that the Alito/O'Connor switch wasn't going to make meeting that standard any easier.
And, indeed, it did not. Louisville comes along, and all of a sudden creating the "perfect affirmative action program" just became even tougher. Being somewhat familiar with the Louisville plan in particular (which, at least to me, seemed a bit narrower than the Seattle plan), it's really hard for me to conceive of an affirmative action program that could possibly be more narrowly tailored than the one offered to the SCOTUS here.
My reading here is that if Kennedy is looking for the Goldilocks affirmative action program (not too hot! not too cold!), and didn't find it here, it's hard to believe he'll ever find one that meets his standard.
And if judicial defeat is not enough, there's lots to be concerned about on the legislative front as well. When you couple this decision with what seems to be a public distaste for affirmative action programs (at least if you take voter initiatives to be accurate harbingers of public attitudes; California passed 209, but also, I think voter initiatives in Michigan, Arizona, and maybe Minnesota as well all curtailed affirmative action programs - but this is just impressionistic, perhaps I'm wrong on some of these states), I think it's fair to say that proponents of affirmative action are losing the war both at the judicial and legislative (state) level.
If all of that's accurate, I think it's worth asking whether it remains sensible to fight a reargaurd action to defend what's left of affirmative action and/or persuade the public to re-institute such programs. I believe in the nobility of such programs, but is this a losing cause?
So, I pose these questions:
(1) Is there a future for affirmative action in this country, and, if so, what does that future look like?
(2) If not, is it time to look at alternatives, and what alternatives fit the bill?
Slate has a pretty interesting discussion of this case, and in particular need based affirmative action that I think is a pretty interesting jumping off point, but I'm more curious to hear what Boalties have to say about all of this.
Exactly, 12:10. The more I think about it, the more I come to believe socioeconomic affirmative action is a panacea for a host of ills. Let's face it: today, in 2007, it is class, not race, that is the great cleavage in America. The impoverished -- be they black or white -- face tremendous barriers in access to education, health care, financial services, job training, and the like. The middle and upper classes -- be they black or white -- have a more-or-less gilded path to success, starting with good schools and continuing through access to professional schools and a professional world that, more or less, welcomes everyone. But of course, sadly, race is still correlated with poverty tremendously -- which is why socioeconomic affirmative action would remedy many of the same ills.
Richard Kahlenberg has a good article on this in Slate today. See also this more general older piece: http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=186
So if racial affirmative action is a) in constitutional jeopardy b) widely divisive c) increasingly rejected by electorates in blue and red states (California, Michigan) d) a blunt instrument e)largely ineffective at remedying historical and social wrongs (was the Seattle school district even integrated?; has affirmative action in hiring or admissions done much for the majority of impoverished blacks? If so, why are the rallies in support always in Sproul Plaza and never in Hunters Point-Bay View?) f) so politically volatile that Democrats rarely bring it up anymore...than just why is the left investing so much political capital in a losing effort to save it?
If you believe politics is about what you can get done -- or even what will do the most good for the most people -- socioeconomic-based policies and preferences seems exponentially more attractive.
There, you have ideas that are a) constitutionally safe b) widely supported by the American people c) can be tailored to address and help black communities because of the dismal link between poverty and race d) also help impoverished whites, Latinos, and Asian who need assistance e) can be implemented in a far more vigorous, direct manner (e.g., why not a 25% quota -- there, I said it: quota -- at Boalt for students who grew up in families making under 50k? It wouldn't have helped me, but I support it, and it would do far, far more to boost diversity (both racial and otherwise) than the current tip-toeing around 209 f) is politically feasible g) actually, could be a political boon for the Democrats if offered by someone like, say, Barack Obama g) would temper racial divisiveness h) begin to mend the suspicion between lower-class whites and lower-class blacks that effectively destroyed the Democratic Party in the 1970s and 1980s i) would rob the conservatives of one of their favorite pet social issues j) would address the shameful class divide in this country k) would confer immediate benefits on lower-class folks who need it l) would more directly and immediately benefit a larger group of African Americans than racial affirmative action ever has m) would help rectify the dirty secret of elite private colleges today: that people at Stanford may be black, white, and brown -- but everyone is middle class or above...then, my goodness, isn't this an easy choice?
4:23 beautifully put. However, if it was really that easy, don't you think that's what educators across the country would be doing it? (I mean Marx made commmunism sound beautiful) I mean, I think you're right, public opinion support for AA is waning. The only people who seem to care about racial diversity are educators. If these educators could meet their goals through the mystical, magical class based AA, I'm sure they would have been doing it.
So, what's it all mean? I have no idea. Turns out race still matters. I imagine and hope that school districts across the country will continue on with their race based programs, that they will flout the authority of the court. And I also see lots more litigation and in a few more years the court will be faced with another decision. And hopefully at that time they will either come clean and say we have to close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and pretend race does not matter. Or they will cut back on this, excuse my french, dumb *ss, ignorant, f*cking decision that came out this past week.
The decision is heartbreaking.
Wow 4:23, that is a lot of sub-points. But great comment, and I really agree with you. But one thing I think we need to recognize is that the stated goals of programs like the ones in Seattle and Louisville are not to remedy social ills or increase access to education. Take a look at part of the mission statement the Seattle schools used for their program:
"Diversity in the classroom increases the likelihood that students will discuss racial or ethnic issues and be more likely to socialize with people of different races. Diversity is thus a valuable resource for teaching students to become citizens in a multi-racial/multi-ethnic world.
Providing students the opportunity to attend schools with diverse student enrollment also has inherent educational value from the standpoint of education's role in a democratic society. Diversity brings different viewpoints and experiences to classroom discussions and thereby enhances the educational process."
What they are basically saying here is that the program's goal is not to benefit any particular class of people, but rather to simply expose students who don't look alike to each other. Keep in mind that this program worked to break up predominantly non-white (their terminology, not mine) schools in the same way it broke up white schools.
Now, maybe this "diversity" rationale is just a cover for the program's real goals, and the administrators were scared by the anti-AA bogeyman into hiding behind this idyllic diversity rationale.
Regardless, at this point in time, the distaste for AA is so strong that the (at least explicit) goal no longer seem to be to remedy ills, or break down barriers for disadvantaged groups. To implement your suggestions, school administrators would not only need to start thinking about class instead of race, but the public would have to be convinced (again) that equity in opportunity is a valid aim in and of itself.
that they will flout the authority of the court.
Please distinguish this from what a southern governor might have said following Brown v. Board. I am REALLY having a hard time distinguishing it myself. Flaunting a Court decision...prolonged litigation...hoping things will change. Yep, sounds just like the south circa 1955 to NOW. I know...IMPEACH ROBERTS!
Flaunting or flouting? There's a big difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home