June 28, 2007
Supreme Court Rules Against School Desegregation Policies
UPDATED.
The modern-day Supreme Court has a tendency to save its touchiest cases for the end of the term, and that was certainly true today. In what was surely a coincidence on the justices' part, this morning's 5-4 decision [PDF] against two school districts' desegregation programs was handed down hours before PBS hosts the first 2008 presidential candidate forum that will focus on race-related issues.
Luckily for the Republican hopefuls, they will be spared having to defend the "right-wing judicial activists" who "turned Brown v. Board of Education on its head" during tonight's event at Howard University. Those criticisms of today's ruling are from Democratic candidate John Edwards, who was joined in the race to release a statement condemning the decision by first-tier rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
Many if not all of the Democratic slate will have something negative to say about today's decision, arguably the most significant affirmative action case concerning the public school system since Brown. Whether it actually turns Brown "on its head," however, isn't at all clear.
Both of the districts in question, one in Seattle and one in Jefferson County, Ky., were considered to have "unitary status" -- that is, vestiges of past segregation had been eliminated. The race-based student assignment programs were implemented voluntarily by both districts.
The original suits were brought by parents whose children were denied admission into the school of their choice because of the programs. Their lawyers, backed by the Bush administration, argued that with racial discrimination no longer a problem for either district, school officials were essentially arguing that sitting a black child next to a white child guaranteed a better education for both.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that racial classification beyond the point where districts have achieved unitary status is tantamount to unconstitutional discrimination. Under the Equal Protection Clause, he noted, the court had no choice but to hold that "being forced to compete in a race-based system that may prejudice the plaintiff" was "an injury that [the parents] can validly claim on behalf of their children."
Stating his point a bit more bluntly, Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Harry Korrell, the lead plaintiffs attorney in the Seattle case, rejected any characterization of the ruling as a setback for civil rights. "This is a crystal-clear affirmation of the most important aspect of Brown," Korrell said in an interview. "This is not about the value of integration or the evil of segregation."
Korrell said a number of non-white students were also denied their first choice, and noted that not all the plaintiffs were white.
"If you look at what the decision says, it says government can't make decisions about where an individual goes to school based on race. That's applying Brown," Korrell said.
But public school districts across the country, and in particular the one in Jefferson County, view the de facto racial segregation in their communities as problematic. Statistically, lower-income students fare worse academically than those from more comfortable backgrounds. Blacks and Latinos are overrepresented in the poor student population.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts cited the specific application of race in determining which students went where as the problem in both programs. In many ways, today's decision is part of a wider judicial trend when it comes to affirmative action cases, as economic segregation, which is often hand in hand with racial segregation but not part and parcel, is increasingly seen as the bigger obstacle for prospective students. In 2003, the court, led by retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, limited universities' consideration of race to just one of many demographic factors, such as income and region.
Richard Kahlenberg, an education expert at the left-leaning Century Foundation, calls income disparity the "new frontier" of affirmative action. "The research has not found that African-American kids do better sitting next to white kids, but rather that low-income kids do better in middle-class environments," he said in an interview.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's key swing vote, sided with the majority, dismissing both districts' plans for being overbroad in their approaches toward racial balance. But in his concurring opinion, the justice did not shut the door on all racial consideration in public schools. "Parts of the opinion of the chief justice imply an all-too-yielding insistence that race cannot be a factor in instances when, in my view, it may be taken into account," Kennedy wrote.
Kennedy's opinion will likely be seen as the prevailing one by lower courts. In other words, race may still sometimes be considered in balancing out public school populations. But it cannot be the only thing that is considered.
The Louisville Courier-Journal and Seattle Times have coverage of the cases and reactions to their outcome. The Supreme Court Web site has a transcript [PDF] of oral arguments. And SCOTUSblog has a graphic chart [PDF] of the many, many 5-4 decisions the court has handed down this term.
The Gate will have coverage of tonight's forum at Howard University tomorrow.
Posted at 6:02 PM
Posted to:
Campaigns, Constitution, Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Race, Supreme Court, WH 2008
Share via
