| Just when you thought you could let your guard down regarding the assault on affirmative action and actually get down to work to get something accomplished, the nation now braces for a rear-guard attack on affirmative action in k-12 public education. It appears that President George Bush, by stacking the deck with the appointments of ustices John G. Roberts, Jr. and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court, has tipped the balance in favor of those who seek to reverse the historic 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision outlawing separate but equal and advancing the need for affirmative action to achieve equality in the nation's educational systems. The Supreme Court announced that when it convenes next Fall, it would take up two cases that challenge the use of affirmative action in public k-12 educational institutions across the nation. The two cases to be reviewed come from Seattle, Washington and Louisville Kentucky. The shift in the politics of the Court is especially evident in that it reversed itself in deciding to review two cases that were very similar to another case involving the use of affirmative action for the school district in Lynn, Massachusetts that was thrown out by the Court when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench as recent as December 2005. Many legal scholars are speculating that if this Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision has the potential to undermine or render null and void the decision the Court recently made affirming the use of affirmative action in the Michigan vs Grutter in 2003. Both school districts have argued that they acted in compliance with the Supreme Court's edicts in the Michigan case where they argued that there was an educational benefit and compelling state interest for using affirmative action to make sure that their school districts were not segregated. The Louisville School District was actually under a 1973 Court Order which mandated busing from 1975-84 to achieve integration. The Court order expired in 2000 and a new plan was put into place which stipulated that no schools, magnet or otherwise, could be less than 15% or no more than 50% African American. To undermine the prospects for segregation in Seattle, the District established that the goal was to attain a 60/40 percentage balance of minority to majority students in the schools -- consistent with the demographics of the city. When enrollment pressures, especially for access to magnet schools became an issue in Seattle, a policy for selecting students using "tie-breakers" was established. There were three criteria used to determine who would get the slot: (1) whether or not a sibling was already at the desired school, (2) whether or not race could contribute to the demographic goals at the school, and (3) proximity to the school. The parent of a White student sued in Louisville arguing that her son was denied a seat in a school in his district by a Black student who was bussed in because of the plan. In Seattle, a group of White parents sued with backing from the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation. They argued that the affirmative action plan for the district discriminated against their children based on skin color. The Seattle plan had already been under legal attack and was put on hold since 2002 by the School Board. It appears that the Supreme Court, and indeed the nation, with the backing of Republicans in both branches of government, and with the big bucks that have been provided by the Center for Equal Opportunity (which financed the opposition to the Michigan case) and the Pacific Legal Foundation, is gradually moving farther and farther to the right. It's pretty obvious that there are some people who don't care if school districts are segregated and separate and unequal. The attitude is, if my kid didn't get in, it has to be because the system has used racial preferences to keep him or her out. It is ironic and pretty sad that those who wish to turn back the clock on civil rights and integration have no shame in quoting Martin Luther King, Jr. in the most perverse ways to support their case. For my two cents, I have always been one who strongly believes that everyone should be involved in trying to make sure that all schools have the facilities, teachers, curricula, and other resources that are needed so all students have the opportunity to be successful. I have always been frustrated by those who wish to tear something done who have no other ideas, inclination, or energy to find a better alternative. If there is enough sentiment out there that expresses the notion that affirmative action isn't perfect, a better alternative is to work collectively to find ways to improve it. The Supreme Court has sent out a powerful message. Next Fall, given the high stakes agenda for the Supreme Court and the fact that the mid-term election for Congress will be held in November 2006, it will be that much more critical for everyone to get involved, and stay involved in the political process if we are to turn back the assault on affirmative action. |
| The Literary Divide/Dr. Paul Barrows Another legal assault on Affirmative Action? |
 |
 |
| Homepage June 28, 2006 Archives |