Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
In what will likely prove to be a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be a factor in the voluntary integration assignment of children to public schools.
Justice Roberts explained: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Justice John Paul Stevens, disagreeing with the plurality of the Court, said in dissent that there was a "cruel irony" in making that claim, because it involved a rewriting of the history "of one of this Court's most important decisions." Stevens noted that he joined the Court in 1975, and asserted that "no member of the Court" at that time "would have agreed with today's decision."
So, does this decision ignore the problem of de facto resegregation in schooling? And if so, is a voluntary segregated school system an example of poor public policy?
For example: My hometown, Chicago, has a very segregated school system. This is due to the very segregated neighborhoods. Thus, many would call this a voluntary segregated school system.
Justice Roberts explained: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Justice John Paul Stevens, disagreeing with the plurality of the Court, said in dissent that there was a "cruel irony" in making that claim, because it involved a rewriting of the history "of one of this Court's most important decisions." Stevens noted that he joined the Court in 1975, and asserted that "no member of the Court" at that time "would have agreed with today's decision."
So, does this decision ignore the problem of de facto resegregation in schooling? And if so, is a voluntary segregated school system an example of poor public policy?
For example: My hometown, Chicago, has a very segregated school system. This is due to the very segregated neighborhoods. Thus, many would call this a voluntary segregated school system.