Toying With Voluntary Segregation

June 29, 2007 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

What's missing from the coverage of the Supreme Court ruling on school desegregation is a discussion of why race is still a factor in our largely segregated public schools. After all, it's been a half century since the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. Shouldn't a half century of proactive integration strategy have diversified public schools by now?

Yes, but the fact is it has not.

In Thursday's "Parents Involved in Community Schools" decision, the justices ruled that use of race as a factor to diversify public school student bodies is largely unconstitutional.

In the early '90s, while Chief Justice William Rehnquist led the court, he wrote the majority opinion in a case that ended court-ordered busing to desegregate schools. He said schools remained segregated because families chose to live in self-segregated neighborhoods (African-Americans in African-American neighborhoods, Latinos in Latino neighborhoods and so on). Gone were the days of de jure or legal discrimination. This self-imposed discrimination, Rehnquist believed, no longer required schools to provide busing to overcome voluntary segregation in housing. And so the vestiges of court-mandated busing were dismantled.

Now the Supreme Court has taken this logic a step further and said schools can't even use race as a factor toward the worthy goal of diversifying, even in say, magnet schools. So the question is, are we as a society going to sit idly by and allow voluntarily segregated neighborhoods to produce involuntarily segregated schools?

Up next: Does colorblind mean discriminatory?

Tags:
education,
Supreme Court

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"Whenever a difference of race, colour, religion, or breeding is not so overcome in the rush of common work or duty as to pass unnoticed or even unknown, if an attempt is made to ignore it in comradeship, society, marriage, or place of residence is instantly recognised, and an irresistible impulse causes the groups to segregate. This is set down by democratic doctrinaires to prejudice or snobbery. They do not perceive that contrasts of character and taste can be ignored when people are engaged in some instrumental action, to which moral diversity is irrelevant; but as soon as the labour is over, and the liberal life of play, art, affection, and worship begins, both sides equally require moral comprehension and are equally chilled, bored, and rendered sterile when comprehension is absent...Vital liberty differentiates. Only vacant freedom leaves all in the same anonymous crowd." - George Santayana

MFH of FL 9:45AM April 22, 2010

The real question here is, "Should government ignore the obvious will of the people in order to achieve something that is largely a social experiment?"

G-man of TX 8:02PM February 14, 2009

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and hosts PBS's weekly news analysis program, To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe. She also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Scripps Howard News Service.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

advertisement