Lynne Varner raises the point today in the Seattle Times, speculating that the Supreme Court may rule against the Seattle School District's race-based tiebreaker. Her view of the matter, however, is troubling.
However, if the court turns Brown on its head by prohibiting any consideration of race in public education, narrowly tailored or not, we're in trouble. It would be an almost perverse interpretation of the 14th Amendment's equal-rights clause. Instead of recognizing the necessary use of racial groups, particularly when ensuring equal opportunity in education, the court could well adopt a colorblind mentality.
Call me a literalist, but isn't the language of the 14th Amendment consistent with a "colorblind mentality"? Isn't that what the great civil rights advances of the 1960's were all about, judging people "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"?
Personally, I believe the Court's rejection of the tiebreaker would strengthen Brown v. Board of Education, not harm it. If we as a society are serious that racial discrimination has no place in public schools then we have no business allowing a race-based policy in school admissions.
Varner is correct that Justice Kennedy is the likely swing vote and that his leanings cannot be determined with certainty. Moreover, she is also right in pointing out there are other means by which to achieve the diversified schools to which Seattle aspires. I raised one yesterday: substitute socio-economic status for race in the tiebreaker.
I should point out that on other education issues Varner "gets it," understanding the necessity of closing the achievement gap, being serious about improving schools, and being willing to think outside the status quo to reach those goals. Yet, on this issue I couldn't disagree more.
I vote for color blind. Any and every rule that includes race is racist in my book. Give everyone the same opportunity and leave it up to them to take it or not.
You are correct that people take ownership in neighborhood schools.
1. There should be one definition of basic education which is applicable to all schools.
2. Schools are like microclimates. A strong principal should be allowed to hire and fire all staff.
3. Schools should be given the flexibility to innovate to produce basic education in their population of students.
4. The current institutional structure will not allow #2 and #3 and power players who are beholden to the current stakeholders will advocate solutions like mayorial control, but will never look at whether the institutional structure needs to be changed. Expect more failure.
Unless, there is some form of competition in the public school system, don't expect things to improve.
its "equal protection" (law applies to all equally), not "equal rights"....
Posted by: righton on December 6, 2006 11:01 AMi'd like to live near Bill Gates. not going to happen. should I now feel discriminated and seek reparations? who said it's a Const. right to have a house anywhere just given to you? or that you simply "deserve it?"
does money effectively "discriminate?" sure--those who have it, inherited it or worked for it get to enjoy it. they should, morally, (but don't always) share it with the poor to the extent they choose and generously. do the Hollywood folk we worship open their compounds/neighborhoods to the "lessers?" yet we do not comdemn them.
the alternative is communism. taking YOUR stuff to give to someone just for the sake of re-distribution. how is that "fair" to you the worker who created the wealth and now want to enjoy it in a bigger house, etc? private charities can handle the social problems better than a huge govt.
as for neighborhoods and schools, the vouchers will solve that issue. as will getting the union chokehold off our lives.
many of your other thoughts are sensible--thanks
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 6, 2006 11:19 AMClass is color blind. If you don't have the income, a lot of doors aren't open to you. Oprah gets in more places than the three of us. :-)
My particular interest is in seeing that all kids receive a good education, I don't care what the color of the kid is. I have a praticular interest in making sure low income kids have a chance.
.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on December 6, 2006 11:54 AMI though it would be a good idea to give minority youth first call on these jobs. I contacted every minority work program I could to send me any pre-qualified applicants. What a nightmare and total waste of time. I was inundated with person that could not fill out a simple job application, speak English (and I do not mean Spanish), or even read!
To make matters worse, over the 30 days of this process, I sent 15 potential applicants for drug testing (at $175.00 each thank you) and they ALL FAILED. I had one job offers refused by a recent 18 yr. old Franklin H. S. graduate because, as he put it, “You be wastin’ my time wid dat $10.00 an hour S**T.”
Of the two minorities that I did hire one, quite because the other employees would not let him play “Gangsta Rap” on the P.A. system on third shift (still waiting for the law suit on this one) and the other was caught stealing in the first week.
I ended up hiring a service that supplied six mentally challenged persons to do the same work. It took a little longer and cost more to train them, but in the future this is what I will do again. They are at work on time, do a great job, enjoy being at work and are a pleasure to be around.
Two persons were hirable out of the 80 or so that entered the process and they left in less than a week. I have not totaled up the cost for all of this, the time, the effort and actual dollars but it was all completely wasted Some of you out there my say that this is raciest, but if this is the reality you see, you can quickly form a BIAS!!!
Affirmative action advocates like Varner will never accept a colorblind solution that treats all economically underprivileged the same. To do so would end their political leverage to continue or expand the plethora of government social and welfare programs they use to pander to the growing permanent underclass by redistributing tax revenue to them. Worse, it would force those in the underclass to compete with each other to improve themselves.
Posted by: Paddy on December 6, 2006 12:06 PM
The call for tossing extra help to whomever is economically disadvantaged is the way to go. Who ever is at the bottom of the stack (regardless of color or ethnicity) should have available extra educational programs and lots of tuition assistance. They will take advantage of them or they will remain at the bottom of the stack.
We will not get equal outcomes for a few generations after everyone figures out that they all have to individually better themselves and get thei kids into the same mindset.
Posted by: krm on December 6, 2006 12:21 PMWVH, I agree with most of what you post, especially the points you make about how to improve schools.
However, with regard to the class issue as a factor in educational achievement, I need to understand where your coming from here.
Doesn't the parent play an important role in the child's education, perhaps more so than class considerations? Yes, I realize that even with motivated parents, bad schools can still hinder kids, but shouldn't both elements be considered side by side?
I personally know at leat two families (large with 5+ children each, one home schooled, one not) that *struggle* financially.
One family lives in a *middle class* neighborhood, the other in a *lower class* neighborhood. I have worked with the children in both families, and all the kids have good to great grades, and are very motivated. My conclusion based on my observations of the families is that parental involvement, discipline, etc., play a major role in academic achievement.
Granted, at some point class considerations (financial issues) may overshadow parental involvment due to stresses and the logiscial problems associated with fianancial struggles, or the effects of living in a *bad* neighborhood (crime, bad role models, etc.), but where do we draw the line regarding parental responsiblity/accountability and class as the major root cause for the state of kids educational achievement?
One final point: What assumptions do we make about class issues and what causes them/perpetuates them. My thinking is that without changing behavior, eliminating class issues completely is impossible.
Just some thoughts I'm mulling over.
Posted by: Marty on December 6, 2006 01:08 PMNow let me get back to watching Montel and Springer while you take care of my kids. Wait, Montel comes on too early - make that Maury and Springer.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on December 6, 2006 01:28 PMOf course, the Seattle public schools have addressed this criticism: they have stated that any student who refuses to classify themselves will be classified by an "inspection of skin tone by a qualified staff member".
Marvellous...
Posted by: yakman on December 6, 2006 02:20 PMHuh? Care to elaborate on what you mean here?
Posted by: Palouse on December 6, 2006 02:49 PMhowever, it never hits the light of day in ANY MSM outlet. even as a follow-up to track the effectiveness of programs. they don't want to know. analagous to finding out THEIR young unmarried daughter is pregnant by a loser peirced-type.
forget the follow-up investigative journalism or audits of ACTUAL RESULTS of these programs. buried in paper. too pc. delayed FOIA requests.
and true--i've worked with some mentally challenged people. very reliable and honest to the best of their abilities. i'd gladly fund those programs that WORK.
blame? plenty--starts at home with values. and people who are not afraid these days to have & uphold values. look at our enemies--they do not shirk in their vigor to get/fight for what they believe in. not condoning them, but warning that one side fights while another rolls over and accepts it and accepts mediocrity. America was not built on mediocrity.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 6, 2006 03:37 PMTake a look at the statewide testing results (broken down by school and look at household income for the area served by that school and you'll be amazed.
Posted by: Anonymous on December 6, 2006 04:56 PMI think your heart is in the right place. The question is why can't there be good schools in all quadrants? There is supposedly diversity in the schools where advanced placement and regular classes co-exist, but there is not much mingling between the groups of students. A lot of poor kids need neighborhood support. The way to get small business, people in the neighborhood to look after these kids is neighborhood schools. I agree with you though, if a parent wants to make a choice out of a neighborhood school, economic diversity of the school might be a factor. I know I am going to get flak from the SP faithful, but it really does take a village to raise a child. Hillary borrowed the title from an African concept about what it takes to make a strong tribe. Because of the title, the concept has been much maligned. A strong neighborhood school that is the center of strong positive neighborhood interaction is the best thing that can happen to both children and schools. Still, if parents want to move out of the neighborhood school, your idea has merit, paricularly if there was a charter school district.