The Seattle School District's failed legal effort to use racial profiling in school assignments will cost the district a fortune:
Seattle Public Schools, already stung from losing its long-running legal fight over voluntary [sic]desegregation measures, now faces a new trial: paying the seven-figure legal fees of the parents who sued the district.That's only fair. When government violates civil rights, government should at least pay the victims' legal fees. But ouch. That's added to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds that the District spent on its side of the case. An appalling waste of money that should have been spent on educating children.
Now the district has to trim its budget to come up with the funds. The first program it should cut is the misguided effort to "eradicate institutional racism". Fittingly ironic, as the victory of Parents Involved in Community Schools may well be the only project that actually did reduce institutional racism in Seattle schools.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 30, 2007 12:31 PM | Email ThisThe SCOTUS diecision is done - time to move on to other problems.
Posted by: Libertarian on June 30, 2007 01:03 PMSeattle's a middling-to-large city that experienced overwhelming growth. Without ever going through the growth pains that shaped most of the large cities - giving them more checks-and-balances. (Think: Tammany Hall, etc.) If you look at it from that perspective, practically everything they do is trying to out-suave everyone as a pure prestige thing.
Baltimore's waterfront? _Excellent_. Let's do that.
New York City has buses, light rail, _and_ heavy rail? Excellent, let's do that.
From this perspective, it is all just city-based jingoistic "patriotism." Whatever crazy scheme some other city comes up with, Seattle needs to nip over to the front of their parade to show _leadership_ in that arena.
Self-financed studies, polls carried out to determine _exactly_ how to word a referendum, neighborhood 'input sessions' where the outcome is clearly foreordained, etc.
Posted by: Al on June 30, 2007 02:06 PMI believe they will have to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2007 03:08 PMIf any of these institutions were businesses in the private sector, they'd have been out of business a couple of decades ago. So, those who must rely on public education (i.e. can't afford private tuition) are at the mercy of people who, on balance, couldn't hold a job in the private sector if you held a gun to their heads.
Posted by: Danny on June 30, 2007 03:24 PMChief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Seems simple enough to me...
Posted by: delbert on June 30, 2007 05:09 PMIt is not right to discriminate against anybody, white or black, female or male.
They and the liberals think that two wrongs make a right.
They were proved wrong in this case, and they and we will all pay for their stupidity.
Posted by: GS on June 30, 2007 05:18 PMJust out of curiosity, what civil right did the government violate here?
Posted by: Nate on June 30, 2007 07:57 PMRather than simply assign the behaviour of the Seattle School District to "liberal nuttiness" I'd encourage readers of this blog to step back to understand fully what is happening in Seattle.
Affirmative action is a full blown sacrement of the progressive religion. Progressivism's strength, at least in terms of accessing public dollars for theological purposes, derives from the fact that Progressivism is both a political movement and a belief system, and particularly a belief system with key sacramental components grounded in superstition or "leaps of faith." One of the central sacramental tenants of progressivism is the need to assign the explanation for racial disparities to causes that can both justify the distribution of spoils and are emotionally acceptable to the underperforming recipients of the spoils, regardless of whether these ascribed causes are supported by science or even even consistent with the known science.
Ascribing low achievement among some minority groups to the psychology, and projected psychology, of members of the higher performing or more numerous alternate groups in society allows the progressives to ascribe a cause that, by its nature, urges redistributive spoils and also insulates the low performing group from any shame associated with their collective performance. By arguing for, defending and promoting this voodoo theory (again, totally unsupported by science), progressives are working to maintain their political coalition and they are working to marginalize opinion that might offer a contrary explanation for minority under performance that is not as amenable to either coalition building or spoils distribution.
This is why progressives are willing to go to the mat for affirmative action.
The SSD attorney doesn't know the law in this case? Geez, besides being in the wrong, having an attorney argue your case who doesn't know the law is a possible explanation as to why SSD lost the case. Says a lot for legal education thse days. Was the attorney a graduate of public schools?
Posted by: Interested Observer on July 1, 2007 06:27 AM"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Posted by: Seabecker on July 1, 2007 08:16 AMI agree the Seattle School District should be broken up - to make it more responsible to the people it serv
Posted by: CrazyFool in Lynwood on July 1, 2007 08:38 AM1. The value of all children meeting a variety of
backgrounds at school. This is not happening
even in many "integrated" schools because
the issue is not just race, it is also class.
Many parents of all colors don't want their
children mixing with kids of what they consider
to be an inferior class, no matter that child's
race. It gets tricky because of multi-
culturalism, but there are certain class traits
that will more likely than not lead to success
in this culture and economic system. Knowing
the language and at least in the commercial
world, understanding the dominant culture.
Successful parents of all colors want this
knowledge for their children. Isn't it amazing
that the elite from around the world send
their children here, Canada, Britain, and
Australia to perfect their English because
it is the langage of commerce and we can't
get many schools to realize that. It doesn't
mean kids can't learn other languages, it is
just understanding commercial reality.
2. Several posters have indicated that they want
the district broken-up. The second premise
of Brown was based upon the fact that
segregated schools received less money and
had poorer quality supplies. The real issue
is not that schools are in a geographically
defined area, the Seattle School District.
The issue is how much autonomy and control
each neighborhood school has to address the
needs and issues of the population of kids
attending that school. Those efforts are
hampered by union contract and one-size fits
all state regulation. More likely than not,
you would still have issues in a smaller
geographic area because those things won't
change.
3. I know the counter to what I am about to say
is voters have voted down charters and
will never accept competition in education, but
it has to happen, if public schools are
to be saved.
Regarding, legal fees, well at some point, the school district will proceed with the defense of a decision and it will be correct. Because of losing on one bad decision, I hope that they don't become timid when they need to be bold.
You and I on the same side?
In this case yes. Brown v Board missed one critical issue ... the right of association. Mandatory deseg. is over-ridden by peoples belief in their right ot control their wn kids education.
That said, let me point out thta the Seattle effort DID work. Asa parent I was thrilled by the way our kids assumed racial equality and the modern social scene in thei city owes a lot ot the integration effort.
Where now? I think the thread here is pretty good ... The principles of reform, IMHO, should be:
Parents own the kids.
Parents have a right to send their kids to any school in the District.
These TWO sijle rules lead to several good choices:
1, Charter schools are one very good answer and the union should not get away with blocking this if the District dies it on its own.
2. Centralizes hi8gh schools should allow kids with similar aspirations to work together .. irrespective of family $$$ or skin color.
Let me focus on the latter issue. This would be a great time for Seattle to build a central city school. We could celebrate our heritage by devoting this school to PacRim issues. The effort would be a natural part of the new city being built in SLU.
for more:
Posted by: SeattleJew on July 1, 2007 09:55 AM1. Most thinking people no matter their color or
political ideology should recognize that
the first, second, and third duty of a
school is to give their students a good
basic education at the k-12 level. Even if
a school is 100% Black, the school can do
that. Dr. King, Dr. Condi Rice, and Sec
of State Colin Powell came from Black k-12
schools, so quality is the issue. The goal
is to move kids from low-performing groups
of color into high levels of achievement.
A good k-12 education allows these kids to
mingle with whom the please later and they
don't have the stigma of being not as
capable. Rice and Powell mingle with all sorts
of people.
2. This is the point of disagreement, how to
give every child at the k-12 level a good
basic education. The current institutional
structure is broken and cannot be fixed.
Those wanting to break the district up are
skirting the issue which is how to get
strong neighborhood schools which address
the needs of their population of kids.
Another contentious issue does involve culture
and class and that is how to teach kids the
characteristics that will make them successful
in this culture and this economy. If you
hate this culture and think that it oppresses
you or hate capitalism, that is going to be
a problem.
3. The only way to save public education is school
choice.
It's particularly ironic that King County now associates itself with Dr. King who wanted all to be judged by the content of their character and not their skin color.
But where do we find racism growing today? In the very Seattle ideology of the left that wants to build class warfare, affirmative action reverse racism programs, multiculturalism that emphasizes race and color, and in Seattle Public Schools and their racist attempts to shuffle students around as if they were sorting M&Ms.
The best solution to racism is to encourage all to adopt better ideas and focus on hard work, honesty, integrity and better content of character, and then reward those values.
But that doesn't fit the Marxist Class Warfare agenda of Marcuse and his descendants in left leaning academia, politics, education and Blue State leadership.
So, they march on with their racism.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 1, 2007 11:20 AMTake a look at the SLUVILLE post at SeattleJew.
There are inaccuracies in your post ... Colin Powell attended mixed schools, not sure about Ms. Rice but she is hardly an exemplar.
The point ought not to be to argue vs. racial integration. That is a good thing, but not a goal to exclude others. There is nothing wrong if a group of parents/kids want any ethnic school.
Posted by: SeattleJew on July 1, 2007 12:03 PM1. It is WVH
2. "About Colin Powell: Colin Powell was born in New York City on April 5, 1937. His parents were immigrants from Jamaica. Powell was raised in the South Bronx." Powell lived in a Jewish neighborhood and worked for a Jewish shopowner, but it is my understanding that his actual classmates were Black.
" A 1917 law required Powell's father to pass a literacy test to enter the United States from Jamaica. It required him to read 40 words from the Bible's 7th Psalm.
• Powell paid only $10 to attend the City College of New York, whose mission was "to help give poor and new immigrants access to higher education."
You are right about City College. My focus is k-12 and I still say that a good basic education trumps phony integration any day. Neighborhoods, at present, tend to not be integrated and that is the problem. They won't be integrated until there is a critical mass of educated people of color who can afford to move into them.
2. Now, for Condi Rice, how arrogant and bigoted of you. Ok, Pudge are you going to follow me around for calling SeattleJew bigoted. I may not agree with her policies but she sure as hell is a better role model than Lil Kim and Snoop Dog. I am amazed at you secular progressives that tear down any Black that doesn't get with your program which benefits you. Now, this link tells you about her growing up in Birmingham, Alabama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condi_Rice
3. I am not arguing against racial integration, but a quality education trumps phony integration and if a quality education is only feasible in a neighborhood school based structure, sobeit.
Posted by: WVH on July 1, 2007 05:03 PM
Catch Stuff Happens at the ACT. If you hate Condi, you'll love this play by David Hare.
Posted by: WVH on July 1, 2007 05:08 PM"Already swimming in red ink, Seattle Schools chose to spend millions to defend a controversial and unproven racial preferences program that even they admit impacted the lives of less than 400 students.
Isn't it time they use the money actually teaching english, math and arithmetic to a student body that now sees more than 1 in 3 student drop out before high school graduation."
Instead, you can bet these bozos without accountability to anyone will rework the program slightly and wind up in court again next year.
Posted by: johnny on July 2, 2007 02:10 PM1) If the use of the racial tiebreaker (which, by the way, helped whites as well as minorities and that was the key reason the district believed it could be used), only "impacted the lives of less than 400 students", why did the parents sue? Oh, it's the principle of the thing; yeah, well, that's why the district used it.
2) we do have choice in public schools. Seattle has dug itself somewhat into a hole because of the amount of choice it does offer and now, because of rising transportation costs, needs to pull back via its enrollment plan. At the high school level, students can pick any high school in the district precisely because of the differences in programming at each school.
3) the district is likely to use a free/reduced lunch tiebreaker in the future instead of a racial tiebreaker. Same outcome, no race measurement involved.
4) don't forget - race was not barred from use in school decisions. This district's (as well as Louisville, KY) narrowly tailored use was barred. Justice Kennedy, in his concurring opinion, did not agree with the majority on their reasoning to not use race and would likely uphold a decision that used race along with other issues in the future
5) good luck with that charter thing; what is it, 3 times now that the voters have turned it back? And that was both at the initiative AND legislative level. DOA.
6) if the plaintiffs and their lawyers knew (and they say they did) that they would be asking for legal fees, it's a little disingenious to do it after the decision but sure, it's their call. I just wouldn't go putting it into a press release about DWT's great "pro bono" work
Posted by: westello on July 2, 2007 05:28 PMNo, I don't think that it would be the "same outcome". There is not a one-to-one correspondence between subsidized lunch recipients and race, is there?
That's the really the nub of the matter. The disparities that currently exist in school assignments are largely a function of wealth, not race.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 2, 2007 06:11 PM
School assignments are not about wealth unless you mean where someone can live in this city. That's an old redlining problem that the district cannot solve. No, there isn't a one to one correlation with free/reduced lunch and race but then it would be very fair, no, if it included every poor child, no matter what their race?
The deal with the tiebreakers was to allow high school students to go to a high school that had the programming they wanted (or perceived they wanted). The district screwed up royally opening the Center School which was not what Magnolia/Queen Anne parents wanted and costs us a bundle. There are already plans to expand it elsewhere which is what they should have done in the first place.
Posted by: westello on July 2, 2007 06:46 PM"5) good luck with that charter thing; what is it, 3 times now that the voters have turned it back? And that was both at the initiative AND legislative level. DOA."
Most progressives claim that they want all children, including children of color, to have a good basic education. At what point do you and others say the institutional structure is failing the very students this remedy of tie-breaker was designed to help? I know nothing about disclosure or freedom of information requests, but I would love to have the records for the time spent by union and school administrators on the defeat of charter schools. So, if the current system continues to fail low-income children of color, what do you propose other than throwing more money at a failing system?
Posted by: WVH on July 2, 2007 10:03 PM