Necia said:
Actually, I did read your comment prior to responding. I still fail to see how most of your comment is relevant to the factual issues of the case or to the constitutional law questions at hand. Yes, you need a high school diploma or its equivalent to get into college. No one's being denied a high school diploma based on race. Therefore, I do not see how your point about higher education relates.
I also don't see how your suggestions affect the issue of maintaining racially integrated public schools. All of those things would be lovely to have in public schools, and ideally, if all public schools were funded as well as those in wealthy suburbs, maybe all public schools would have such things--but those things don't do anything about the issue of maintaining racial integration in our public schools. Your suggestions are fine ones, but I don't see how they really pertain to the facts of the cases at hand, or to the constitutional questions posed by these cases.
Since 1954, there has been nothing stopping people of any skin color from attending any school they wish. Why should there be a law mandating the plucking up of people from one district and sending them to schools in another simply for the sake of racial integration? There is no issue of racial inequality here, so the only plausible reason for forced integration is to promote cultural diversity and tolerance, which can be done without displacing people.
Strelnikov said:
There is no issue of racial inequality here,
This is total bullshit.
so the only plausible reason for forced integration is to promote cultural diversity and tolerance, which can be done without displacing people.
Not with the same effect it can't.
I'm not saying that there is no issue of racial inequality period, just that such things can't be solved by integrating schools. Racial inequality is an issue of socioeconomic status and deep seated bigotry. As I said before, I would be happy to endorse integration between wealth levels or between family education levels, but to do it because of race just seems wrong.
Strelnikov said:
There is no issue of racial inequality here,
This is total bullshit.
so the only plausible reason for forced integration is to promote cultural diversity and tolerance, which can be done without displacing people.
Not with the same effect it can't.
I'm not saying that there is no issue of racial inequality period, just that such things can't be solved by integrating schools. Racial inequality is an issue of socioeconomic status and deep seated bigotry. As I said before, I would be happy to endorse integration between wealth levels or between family education levels, but to do it because of race just seems wrong.
You say "wrong", but I say "realistic". The fact is that even if you were to equalize all other socio-economic factors, the experiences of white people are going to be different from people of color and there will still be inescapable racism. The sharing of those differing experiences through integration is the most effective and realistic way to address that issue.
But again, whether you find it distasteful is really not the point. The democratically elected school-board of Seattle thought it was appropriate. Also, again, Brown didn't say that racial classifications of any kind are impermissible. That was something added later by folks trying to twist the meaning of Brown to justify inequality of opportunity through institutionalized racism.
hellboy7 said:
Ok ok ok. Big deep breath. Whew. WHAT THE FUCK!?!?! Did we just make one HUGE ass U turn and undo all thats been accomplished in the last 40 years??
Subrosa said:
The idea of "equality" is amorphous at best. This decision draws a clean line between de jure segregation and de facto segregation and says that while the former is (rightfully) impermissible, it is actually impermissible to do anything about the latter.
When you say it like this, it doesn't do a good job of promoting your argument. Since so many people choose where they live based on the quality of education in an area, is it really government's place to usurp that decision and move their children to schools that are farther away solely because that school needs more racial diversity?
This is not a case where people are being bussed across county lines or they move into an area where they were unaware there was bussing. This is a case where a democratically elected school board under mandate from the people who voted them in instituted a program in an attempt to lessen the impact of de facto segregation.
Under mandate from the people who voted them in? The case went to court because the people who voted them in said the policy was unconstitutional. And while I agree that integration has many benefits, I don't believe the government has the right or even the ability to effectively deal with de facto segregation, disheartening though that may be.
That sounded better in my head, what I'm getting at is that you can't change culture through legislation, and a change in culture is what's needed to end this sort of segregation.
Subrosa said:
The idea of "equality" is amorphous at best. This decision draws a clean line between de jure segregation and de facto segregation and says that while the former is (rightfully) impermissible, it is actually impermissible to do anything about the latter.
When you say it like this, it doesn't do a good job of promoting your argument. Since so many people choose where they live based on the quality of education in an area, is it really government's place to usurp that decision and move their children to schools that are farther away solely because that school needs more racial diversity?
This is not a case where people are being bussed across county lines or they move into an area where they were unaware there was bussing. This is a case where a democratically elected school board under mandate from the people who voted them in instituted a program in an attempt to lessen the impact of de facto segregation.
Under mandate from the people who voted them in? The case went to court because the people who voted them in said the policy was unconstitutional.
Yes, because the actions of a small organization of plaintiffs TOTALLY reflect the wishes of the community.
And while I agree that integration has many benefits, I don't believe the government has the right or even the ability to effectively deal with de facto segregation, disheartening though that may be.
Well, government did have the right to deal with de facto segregation in public schools until now. They still do have the right and responsibility to deal with de facto segregation in other contexts, such as in higher education. Not to mention that (according to Kennedy's concurring opinion) they still have the "right" to deal with it in public high schools in certain contexts. What's bothersome to me is that he doesn't lay out those contexts clearly enough so that practically his opinion is pretty worthless.
That sounded better in my head, what I'm getting at is that you can't change culture through legislation, and a change in culture is what's needed to end this sort of segregation.
That sounds really nice and all, but it's just not so. The fact is you can change culture using law as one of, if not the primary, vehicles of such change. See: The Civil War Amendments; The Civil Rights Act of 1965; Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut; Brown v. Board; etc.
Subrosa said:
Yes, because the actions of a small organization of plaintiffs TOTALLY reflect the wishes of the community.
True, and while I don't claim to know the specifics, it's hard for me to imagine the organization getting to the supreme court without some amount of support from the community.
That sounds really nice and all, but it's just not so. The fact is you can change culture using law as one of, if not the primary, vehicles of such change. See: The Civil War Amendments; The Civil Rights Act of 1965; Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut; Brown v. Board; etc.
I see these cases/legislations being more of a reflection of a change in the culture of the time, rather than instigating change themselves; these were more cementations of cultural trends than prime movers.. Roe v. Wade would not have turned out the way it had unless the country was ready for it, and the Civil Rights Act certainly would not have happened without the civil rights movement. Brown v. Board, especially, would have just been another Plessy v. Ferguson had the culture not been what it already was in the 50's.
Subrosa said:
Yes, because the actions of a small organization of plaintiffs TOTALLY reflect the wishes of the community.
True, and while I don't claim to know the specifics, it's hard for me to imagine the organization getting to the supreme court without some amount of support from the community.
You're ignoring my point. This was a democratically elected board. The principles of representative democracy being what they are, dictate that the community at large was in favor of these sorts of programs. If the community at large were not in favor of these sorts of programs, they would presumably vote for the other guy.
Not that "majority rules" really has any bearing on the adjudicative process in this case, but I bring this up to refute your point about this being against the will of the people.
That sounds really nice and all, but it's just not so. The fact is you can change culture using law as one of, if not the primary, vehicles of such change. See: The Civil War Amendments; The Civil Rights Act of 1965; Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut; Brown v. Board; etc.
I see these cases/legislations being more of a reflection of a change in the culture of the time, rather than instigating change themselves; these were more cementations of cultural trends than prime movers.. Roe v. Wade would not have turned out the way it had unless the country was ready for it, and the Civil Rights Act certainly would not have happened without the civil rights movement. Brown v. Board, especially, would have just been another Plessy v. Ferguson had the culture not been what it already was in the 50's.
Again, you're not really getting what I'm saying. We can argue chicken-or-egg all you want, but your assertion was that legislation cannot change culture. That is emphatically not the case. It may be in concert with some other cultural movement, but to assert that law has no bearing on culture is just plain silly. It would be just as silly as me arguing the converse.
Subrosa said:
Yes, because the actions of a small organization of plaintiffs TOTALLY reflect the wishes of the community.
True, and while I don't claim to know the specifics, it's hard for me to imagine the organization getting to the supreme court without some amount of support from the community.
You're ignoring my point. This was a democratically elected board. The principles of representative democracy being what they are, dictate that the community at large was in favor of these sorts of programs. If the community at large were not in favor of these sorts of programs, they would presumably vote for the other guy.
Not that "majority rules" really has any bearing on the adjudicative process in this case, but I bring this up to refute your point about this being against the will of the people.
I see what you're saying, but it's not necessarily accurate in all cases. There are plenty of times where an elected official will act in a way that even the official's former supporters staunchly disagree with. i.e. Our president and congress.
That sounds really nice and all, but it's just not so. The fact is you can change culture using law as one of, if not the primary, vehicles of such change. See: The Civil War Amendments; The Civil Rights Act of 1965; Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut; Brown v. Board; etc.
I see these cases/legislations being more of a reflection of a change in the culture of the time, rather than instigating change themselves; these were more cementations of cultural trends than prime movers.. Roe v. Wade would not have turned out the way it had unless the country was ready for it, and the Civil Rights Act certainly would not have happened without the civil rights movement. Brown v. Board, especially, would have just been another Plessy v. Ferguson had the culture not been what it already was in the 50's.
Again, you're not really getting what I'm saying. We can argue chicken-or-egg all you want, but your assertion was that legislation cannot change culture. That is emphatically not the case. It may be in concert with some other cultural movement, but to assert that law has no bearing on culture is just plain silly. It would be just as silly as me arguing the converse.
Fair enough. When you said a primary mover, I thought you meant more than you did. I just see culture influencing law more than the opposite than maybe you do.
Strelnikov
Holden, MA
March 2007
JUL 09, 2007 05:56 PM