The DOE has put forth proposed race categorization guidelines that mirror the “check-all-that-apply” 2000 Census but then distills the varieties into a generic “two or more races” category when the states report data to the federal level. In Jefferson County, I guess this would make my children white, even though they are half African American.

I certainly understand the respondent’s arguements, but the limited way our institutions define people by race does not currently recognize the existence of multiracial people. If the respondents want me to buy their argument, they have offer my family a place at the table instead of leaving us out in the cold.

The thought that racial diversity could be achieved by greater consideration of where new schools are placed is fairly ignorant of the fact that school locations, as major public capital expenditures, are sticky. Once a decision is made, a school will not be shut down and relocated on the basis of a change in the district’s demographic composition.

The reason this is relevant, is because current housing patterns in this country have very much been shaped by previous policy decisions that were institutionally, if not overtly, racist and as such are a far cry from the “equal protection under the law” that we all hold dear. While schools are not free to move around as demographics shift, people are and not all public school districts are created equally. It’s the reason why I am personally glad that I went to public schools in Evanston, IL versus schools in a non-affluent neighborhood of Chicago.

If these cases are turned over on their appeal to the Supreme Court, I am certain that people will vote with their feet and to the extent that there are inequities within our public school system, it will be exacerbated by people seeking housing in the neighborhoods where the schools are known to be better than others (one only needs to consult the U.S. News and World Report’s ranking of high schools to find out which ones are clearly superior). The end result is that no matter how school boards try to “make things right” without the use of race, the end result will be that neighborhoods will become even more segregated by income (and consequently race) than they already are. And if I am not mistaken, the crux of Brown was not just that schools for whites and blacks were not equal at that time, but that also segregation, ceteris paribus, made things inherently inequitable.

As to the ethnicity issue, race is not the same concept as race is completely a social construction that under the Thomas theorem is real only because people perceive it to be. Although discrimination on the basis of ethnicity is also a part of the country’s history (new versus old immigration), it has by no means been as pervasive and detrimental to a people as discrimination on the basis of race has been and their is no other race of people that have suffer discrimination solely on the basis of skin color.

Granted that all of these comments are rooted on my personal opinion and biases, but so are all of the other comments that have interpreted the law as their own feelings justify. Although I think it is hard to argue against the economic and social reasoning behind my words. It is quite easy to be dismissive about the significance if one has never been on the receiving end of government policies that have disadvantaged you for generations. It is also important to remember that Brown, Affirmative Action, and the like were corrective actions. Of course it would be nice if those provisions were unnecessary, but the reality is that given the history of this country, there would be no incentive to change things otherwise because no one would be quick to give up the privileges they once enjoyed. Also, all of our nation’s laws, especially the Constitution, are works in progress. There have been things that were constitutional one day there were not the next.

Roger Friedman

That decision, Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, was issued yesterday. It was decided by an 8-to-7 vote (all but one of the Democratic appointees were in the majority, while all the Republican appointees dissented).

John Rosenberg discusses the decision in a post called “In Paradise, Diversity Means No Whites,” at the DISCRIMINATIONS blog (www.discriminations.us).

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling illustrates the dangers of giving deference to educators on racial matters, as the Ninth Circuit did in its earlier decision upholding the Seattle School District’s use of race to promote racial balancing.

Now, the Ninth Circuit has used that same concept of deference to uphold a policy of racial segregation and exclusion.

Apparently, the defenders of using race in admissions are willing to make contradictory arguments.

When they want to admit more minority students to a predominantly white school, they argue that racial mixing enhances education for members of all races, requiring the use of race to increase minority enrollment.

But when they want to exclude whites from a predominantly minority school, they argue that racial mixing does nothing for education, and that educators’ decision to create a one-race school is entitled to deference.

(John Rosenberg’s post on the case,”In Paradise, Diversity Means No Whites,” is found at http://www.discriminations.us/2006/12/in_paradise_diversity_means_no.html).

Another reason not to give schools deference when they use race is that they may have improper motives for using race, and strict scrutiny, in contrast with deference, allows a court to smoke out such improper motives.

Although one Ninth Circuit judge accepted the argument that the Seattle Schools’ use of race was designed to create a “melting pot,” that is not their true motive, since the Seattle Schools denounce the very concept of a “melting pot” on their web site.

And the Seattle Schools have promoted invidious racial stereotypes, such as claiming that planning ahead (“future time orientation”) is a white characteristic that minorities should not be expected to exhibit, and that only whites can be racists.

And they have treated students as members of competing racial groups rather than as individuals, claiming that “individualism” is a form of “cultural racism.”

Thus, their goal doesn’t seem to be to promote integration or the concept of a melting pot.

Rather, it seems to be based on the belief that whites and minorities have permanent, innate racial differences that make racial balancing necessary to ensure that each school has a student body with roughly the same mix of characteristics.

But “racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003).

And if their actual motive is not to promote a melting pot, but rather reflects racial stereotypes, that is another reason to find that their use of race is unconstitutional. See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 904 n.4 (1996).

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement

Especially given John Roberts’ oral argument in Rice v. Cayetano.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=1990-1999/1999/1999_98_818

http://misterthorne.org/blog_lfd/?p=185

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

_____________
Mister Thorne
11 Crestline Drive
San Francisco, CA 94131

(415) 285 5777
mister.thorne@comcast.net
http://www.misterthorne.org

At that time racism was the key factor that caused the landmark ruling.

So, I don’t think that just to have ‘balance’ of the races in the classroom is really the issue.

I don’t think it’s good to have children bussed from their neighborhoods to another district just to please those who wish to create a sense of equality.

That misses the point of having children not being able to maintain friendships within their own neighborhoods naturally.

I think it’s better to educate children about other cultures, than to try and force an artificial mix, just so it looks equal.

I would reply to this, but I’m on CP time, so I might get around to it later. But only if I damn well feel like it.

But as Professor Douglas Kmiec points out in an editorial in today’s USA Today, the assigning students to schools based on their skin color only indulges racial “ugly” racial “stereotypes.”

In fact, the Seattle Schools actively promote the most invidious racial stereotypes.

They publicly denounce “concepts such as a melting pot” on their web site, calling them a failure. They have treated students as members of competing racial groups rather than individuals, claiming that “individualism” is a form of “cultural racism.” They have also engaged in offensive racial stereotyping, claiming that planning ahead (“future time orientation”) is a white characteristic that it is racist to expect minorities to exhibit.

Moreover, the Seattle Schools are diverse even without using race, and no court has ever held them to be segregated.

Of course, the goal of achieving a melting pot is worthy one. Moreover, a facially neutral decision designed to promote a melting pot, like considering demographics in deciding where to site a school, is not subject to strict scrutiny merely because school officials acted race-consciously in considering race as one of many factors in deciding where to put the school.

(The First Circuit pointed that out Anderson v. Boston (1st Cir. 2004). That case quoted Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457, 484-85 (1982), for the proposition that while a “racial classification,” like a race-based school assignment, is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the underlying motive for it, by contrast, a facially neutral decision (like where to site a school) is not subject to strict scrutiny unless it “was designed to accord disparate treatment” to one race or another).

Thus, striking down race-based student assignment policies would not in any way undermine legitimate methods of achieving a racially-mixed student body, such as siting a new school where members of all races will be able to easily attend, or setting up magnet schools designed to prevent white flight.

That is one more reason why the race-based student assignment policies of the Seattle and Jefferson County schools should be struck down.

They are simply unconstitutional examples of racial balancing, which Grutter v. Bollinger describes as “patently unconstitutional.” 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003).

-Bill Thompson