And how does that not jive with 'decisions handed down since 1954?' I think it fits, and I think it's appropriate to reference Brown v Board, since the justices did so many times yesterday... even though the lawyers who argued for the plaintiffs in that case say the court's decision got their positions very, very wrong.

So just come out and say it: those black kids in the West End will get an inferior education and learn to like it.

 

Equality in education SHOULD be a reality. Allowing the JCPS school system to sink back to schools with minimal mixing of white and black students will harm the realization of that ideal. Luckily, Kennedy left the door open to prevent that.

 

 

I'm curious to know why you think the black kids from the West End will get an inferior education? Surely you are not implying that white kids are smarter than black kids, and thus by intermixing black and white kids together, the black kids will intellectually benefit from sitting next to the white kids. Why do you think the minimal mixing of blacks and whites creates an obstacle to equality in education? The Brown decision was ruled on in a totally different era of race relations in American history. Are we totally race blind today? Of course not, but its much, much different (for the better) than it was at the time the Brown decision was made.

 

Frankly, I don't think I have problem if some schools end up predominantly white and others predominantly black as long as both schools are getting properly funded and supported. I may be even able to support the position that one school may need to be funded more than the other other if it can be established that the needs of one school are greater than the other. With the decrease in bussing costs, there may be more money available to fund some necessary programs that can't be funded today. Furthermore, if the schools are more local in composition, the support from the nearby community and parental participation in the schools may increase. Both of which, as Martha likes to say, are good things.

 

As for the belief of some that we need to intermix the races in grade and high school to stamp out discrimination, I can only respond with my own experience. I attended an all white grade and high school. I grew up in an all white town. The first time I met a black person was when I reported for football at Centre. There weren't many blacks at Centre but there were some. I actually became good friends with several blacks there. I served with a lot of blacks in the Marines. I got along very well with them. I honestly don't feel I have a bigoted fiber in my body. Yet this is in spite of not going to grade or high school with any blacks or even meeting a black person until I went to college.

 

If intermixing the races in grade and high school is necessary to create racial harmony, how did I turn out the way I did?

 

Rockmom, I don't have an answer to your original question about the effect of this ruling on JCPS. But I do wonder what affect this ruling will have on X and T if some public schools return to being neighborhood schools, some predominantly white and others predominantly black. Do you and other Louisvillians feel that the bussing of students has played a role in the increase in attendance at X and T? I'm not saying it has, as I'm not from Louisville and thus could not know. What do you think?

Yes, we can. I disagree with a policy of affirmative action, but this is the kind of sanctimonious response and lack of respect for the tradition of law that has gotten us to the point we are in today. I, for one, am not going to engage you.

 

Of course you aren't going to "engage" me, Heresay. I know and you should know that "the law" will not cure anything. I would submit that some of these ridiculous interpretations by federal courts have led many to lose respect for the "tradition of law".

 

Call my reply "sanctimonius" if you must. However, history proves that it is fact.

 

I may not like it and you may not like it. Nevertheless, reality is that everyone is not equal- economically or intellectually. By the way, before you infer that I am saying otherwise, it has nothing to do with race. I am talking about, for lack of a better phrase, haves and have nots. For whatever reason, God does not allow all of us to be born with equal social, financial, physical, and intellectual capabilites and opportunities. It would be preposterous for anyone to believe that a court of human beings can do so.

 

If you truly believe equality can be achieved, tell us how you will accomplish it without stealing equal opportunity from others. It should not be the "tradition of law" to take away an opportunity from a more qualified individual to provide that opportunity to a lesser qualified individual.

 

Don't attack the bearer of the message. If you can, attack the message. However, remember that this is the "real world".

The bolded should be edited to say Equality in educational opportunity should be a reality.

 

Unless you are going to say take the kids away from the parents who don't place an emphasis on education and put them in homes of parents who do.

 

Too much of a child's education is laid at the feet of the parents to blame inequality of education completely on the school.

 

The school can assign homework, ask the parents to read with their child each night, help them memorize their multiplication tables but if it is not being done at home, the kid's education will suffer.

 

 

I agree with your post completely. Bussing kids and intermixing them in my opinion doesn't help the education process at all. It may in the opinion of some (but not me) create the social benefit of better race relations, but schools should not be used for social experiments or policies.

 

Furthermore, placing a white kid who gets no parental support or encouragement in a school of blacks who get such support and encouragement is not going to cause the white kid's parents to get more involved in my opinion. If the white kid's parents don't understand the importance of providing that support and encouragement on their own, nothing is going to turn on the light bulb for them. If anything, placing the white kid in a school cross town will probably be a disincentive to that happening, will cause the student to be on a bus for a long time each day, may discourage the kid from getting involved in athletics and other extra curricular after school activities, and lessens the bond of a community with the school. All bad in my thinking.

 

Again, perhaps my thinking if off base as I've never had to deal with the situation. I'd love to read why people think bussing to integrate the races is a positive think in today's racial environment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-908

 

Here is a copy of the Opinion, which I have read now. Here are some initial observations:

 

1. Brown is mentioned only twice in the majority opinion, and even then only paranthetically to address the dissent's contentions. It was apparently only part of the briefing for the sake of history, but the primary legal precedents were Grutter and Bakke.

 

2. Justice Roberts' opinion is very concise, very well-written, and very straightforward.

 

3. I agree with CamFieldJunky that Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion leaves open the possibility of a change if a JCPS case comes back to court.

 

4. However, the concurrence also agrees with the "factors" that JCPS must incorporate into a revised plan, and I don't believe JCPS has the resources or werewithal at this time to re-create such factors.

 

5. Without reservation, the entire Opinion was an indictment of JCPS officials and lawyers, who were told in no uncertain terms that they had botched this case.

 

6. In obiter dicta, the Court addressed but refused to resolve the contention, oft-heard, that there is empirical evidence suggesting that racial diversity benefits the educational experience. I have yet to read the first piece of evidence that proves that, though I have this "gut feeling" that it is valuable and can't explain why. Maybe someone can comment.

From what I read this morning, Kennedy says race cannot be THE factor but can be A factor. To me , its either a factor or its not and that's what the ruling should be based upon.

 

What am I missing?

I agree with your post completely. Bussing kids and intermixing them in my opinion doesn't help the education process at all. It may in the opinion of some (but not me) create the social benefit of better race relations, but schools should not be used for social experiments or policies.

 

Furthermore, placing a white kid who gets no parental support or encouragement in a school of blacks who get such support and encouragement is not going to cause the white kid's parents to get more involved in my opinion. If the white kid's parents don't understand the importance of providing that support and encouragement on their own, nothing is going to turn on the light bulb for them. If anything, placing the white kid in a school cross town will probably be a disincentive to that happening, will cause the student to be on a bus for a long time each day, may discourage the kid from getting involved in athletics and other extra curricular after school activities, and lessens the bond of a community with the school. All bad in my thinking.

 

Again, perhaps my thinking if off base as I've never had to deal with the situation. I'd love to read why people think bussing to integrate the races is a positive think in today's racial environment.

 

02Ram is correct when he speaks about how segregated the city of Louisville still is at this point in time. While we have come a long way as far as the racism is concerned it is still present to an extent. It also pervades many things that involve Metro Government too.

 

The mixing of the races via bussing, in my opinion has helped race relations in Louisville as those kids who went to school in those settings are starting to come into their own as leaders in this community. Many of the old biases and prejudices are still there, but they begin to fade over time and through exposure to the differing races and subcultures.

 

This may not be the case in some cities, but I do not doubt for second that it was not of help to easing the racial tension in this city since its inception. There were riots over it at first and heightened tension at first yes, but over time the benefits have started to show in my opinion.

One very important point that may have been mentioned above. (I did not read the entire thread) I have also not read the entire opinion, but I think the following is correct:

 

Only FOUR Justices said "race cannot be used as a factor" (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia)

 

Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment (because the plan was not narrowly tailored), but was not willing to go so far as to say race cannot be a factor. Thus, the Bakke case and other cases holding race CAN be used as a factor, is seemingly still GOOD LAW.

 

The signal, as I understand now (without reading every word of the opinion), is clear. Justice Kennedy told Jefferson County to do a better job "tailoring" their plan. Kennedy basically said, re-work it and send it back to me and if its a "better" plan, I will switch sides.

 

Does anyone agree?

I absolutely agree.

Both of you are engaging in gross oversimplification of the legal question, and I have watched both of you post here many times and know that you know better.

 

02Ram, I don't think I comprehend your last paragraph. Are you claiming that Teddy Gordon said the U.S. Supreme Court misconstrued his position, or are you saying that Teddy Gordon argued to the Supremes that the Brown decision was wrong?

Nytimes article

 

All of the justices on both sides of yesterday’s 5-to-4 decision claimed to be, in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s phrase, “faithful to the heritage of Brown.”

 

But lawyers who represented the black schoolchildren in the Brown case said yesterday that several justices in the majority had misinterpreted the positions they had taken in the litigation and had misunderstood the true meaning of Brown.

 

“We have one fundamental contention,” a lawyer for the schoolchildren, Robert L. Carter, had told the court more than a half-century ago. “No state has any authority under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.”

 

Chief Justice Roberts added yesterday, “There is no ambiguity in that statement.”

 

But the man who made that statement, now a 90-year-old senior federal judge in Manhattan, disputed the chief justice’s characterization in an interview yesterday.

 

“All that race was used for at that point in time was to deny equal opportunity to black people,” Judge Carter said of the 1950s. “It’s to stand that argument on its head to use race the way they use is now.”

 

Jack Greenberg, who worked on the Brown case for the plaintiffs and is now a law professor at Columbia, called the chief justice’s interpretation “preposterous.”

 

“The plaintiffs in Brown were concerned with the marginalization and subjugation of black people,” Professor Greenberg said. “They said you can’t consider race, but that’s how race was being used.”

 

Professor Greenberg said he was also wary of the reaction to yesterday’s decision. “Following Brown, there was massive resistance” that lasted some 15 years, he said. “This is essentially the rebirth of massive resistance in more acceptable form.”

 

William T. Coleman Jr., another lawyer who worked on Brown, said, “The majority opinion is 100 percent wrong.”

 

“It’s dirty pool,” said Mr. Coleman, a Washington lawyer who served as secretary of transportation in the Ford administration, “to say that the people Brown was supposed to protect are the people it’s now not going to protect.”

02Ram is correct when he speaks about how segregated the city of Louisville still is at this point in time. While we have come a long way as far as the racism is concerned it is still present to an extent. It also pervades many things that involve Metro Government too.

 

The mixing of the races via bussing, in my opinion has helped race relations in Louisville as those kids who went to school in those settings are starting to come into their own as leaders in this community. Many of the old biases and prejudices are still there, but they begin to fade over time and through exposure to the differing races and subcultures.

 

This may not be the case in some cities, but I do not doubt for second that it was not of help to easing the racial tension in this city since its inception. There were riots over it at first and heightened tension at first yes, but over time the benefits have started to show in my opinion.

 

Thanks for the answer. I'm not from Louisville, so I appreciate your perspective.

 

Follow up questions if you don't mind: why do you think that mixing kids on the busses/schools is responsible for the improvement of race relations? And could there be other reasons for the improvement (one as simple as we (society) now, much more than in the 50's and 60's, have a much better understanding of the evils of racial discrimination)?

 

I hope you don't mind me asking the questions, but I'm just not convinced yet that bussing has caused the improvement in race relations that this country has experienced in the last 50 years, or for that matter, that grade and high schools are the proper place to effectuate social change.

 

 

Finally as a T supporter, do you think the return to neighborhood schools, some predominantly white and others black, would have an affect on the enrollment at T or X? Or in other words, do you think the bussing of the public schools caused people to send their children to the private schools?

One thing is clear. Whether or not you agree with the reasoning of this decision the effect will be profound.

 

The schools will become more segregated based on race, and the "green" will follow the White.

Thanks for the answer. I'm not from Louisville, so I appreciate your perspective.

 

Follow up questions if you don't mind: why do you think that mixing kids on the busses/schools is responsible for the improvement of race relations? And could there be other reasons for the improvement (one as simple as we (society) now, much more than in the 50's and 60's, have a much better understanding of the evils of racial discrimination)?

 

I hope you don't mind me asking the questions, but I'm just not convinced yet that bussing has caused the improvement in race relations that this country has experienced in the last 50 years, or for that matter, that grade and high schools are the proper place to effectuate social change.

Speaking as someone who was bussed (and again, voluntarily- I chose my school) I spent the last two years of elementary school down at MLK Jr, which is located west of 43rd st between Vermont and Muhammad Ali. If you know the area, you know that that I had more African American friends and classmates than my parents ever would have dreamed of. My Dad remembers the ONE black kid in his school- his high school. My Mother tells me that she didn't have a meaningful interaction with a person of color until she was an adult. That's quite a difference, and it was in my opinion clearly a positive one. Having lived the reality, that's all I can really say, that the interaction of young children is the best improvement to race relations possible.

Thanks for the answer. I'm not from Louisville, so I appreciate your perspective.

 

Follow up questions if you don't mind: why do you think that mixing kids on the busses/schools is responsible for the improvement of race relations? And could there be other reasons for the improvement (one as simple as we (society) now, much more than in the 50's and 60's, have a much better understanding of the evils of racial discrimination)?

 

I hope you don't mind me asking the questions, but I'm just not convinced yet that bussing has caused the improvement in race relations that this country has experienced in the last 50 years, or for that matter, that grade and high schools are the proper place to effectuate social change.

 

 

Finally as a T supporter, do you think the return to neighborhood schools, some predominantly white and others black, would have an affect on the enrollment at T or X? Or in other words, do you think the bussing of the public schools caused people to send their children to the private schools?

 

 

I'll say this for me, as you asked me a similar question earlier.

 

I entered first grade in a Catholic school 2 years prior to enforced bussing. It was not a part of my family's decision making.

 

When I got divorced, which was before either of my kids started school, we had it written into our custody agreement that both kids would attend Catholic schools until the 12th grade.

 

Bussing has influenced no educational decision that I personally am aware of.

 

If bussing was a factor in the growth of Trinity, for example, wouldn't it stand to reason that when bussing ended and open enrollment was implemented, that we'd have seen an ever increasing decline in enrollment?

Well of course those who participated in representing Brown would say that the Chief Justice is incorrect. What else could be expected? Those people were/are advocates for a particular viewpoint and are not interpreters of the U.S. Constitution as is Justice Roberts.

 

If we accept the arguments of these guys as fact, we should, I suppose, accept Bush's interpretation of the necessity of the war effort.

 

Advocates are not reporters. They are spinning from one direction. It is their job to spin one side of the debate. It is our job to realize this and not accept spin as necessarily being the truth.

 

I would think that Justice Roberts is a little more of an unbiased source in this than are these aged civil rights lawyers or the NYT.

Well of course those who participated in representing Brown would say that the Chief Justice is incorrect. What else could be expected? Those people were/are advocates for a particular viewpoint and are not interpreters of the U.S. Constitution as is Justice Roberts.

 

If we accept the arguments of these guys as fact, we should, I suppose, accept Bush's interpretation of the necessity of the war effort.

 

Advocates are not reporters. They are spinning from one direction. It is their job to spin one side of the debate. It is our job to realize this and not accept spin as necessarily being the truth.

 

I would think that Justice Roberts is a little more of an unbiased source in this than are these aged civil rights lawyers or the NYT.

They were referencing only what Roberts said about Brown v Board, particularly those that argued for the plaintiffs. I would say they're an authority on that subject...

The notion that Supreme Court Justices are unbiased is unfortunately off base.

 

From Warren's Court of lefties to Scalia and Thomas, Supreme Court Justices usually have their mind made up before hearing argument. (IMO)