Busing Redux: Misunderstanding Brown v. Board
Busing — or rather, the debate over busing — is back, and along with it, more misunderstanding of Brown v. Board of Education.
The Washington Post on January 12 published a long front-page article by reporter Stephanie McCrummen — “Republican school board in N.C. backed by tea party abolishes integration policy” — criticizing the new Republican majority on the Wake County, North Carolina, School Board for ending county-wide busing and, thus, turning its back on Brown. The next day the Post published a letter from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan criticizing the board for abandoning the “core value” of “diversity” and threatening an investigation.
Busing to achieve racial balance was initially foisted onto the nation by another North Carolina school system, courtesy of the Supreme Court’s 1971 ruling in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. In the 1990s, some parents filed a lawsuit challenging the exclusion of their children from magnet schools because they were white; in 1999 a federal district court judge declared that the district — now 40% black — had long since remedied its segregation, ordering the board to stop “assigning children to schools or allocating educational opportunities and benefits through race-based lotteries, preferences, or other means that deny students an equal opportunity based on race.” Shortly thereafter, “the local school board adopted a new assignment plan that combined neighborhood schools with parental choice within several large assignment zones.” Wake County, however, stuck to its old, county-wide busing program. But in an attempt to avoid legal challenge, the old busing system was now justified as necessary to promote economic, not racial, diversity.
Predictably, ending county-wide busing has been attacked by civil rights groups and their friends as “turning back the clock” by re-introducing “segregation.” William Barber of the local NAACP said that allowing children to choose to attend their neighborhood schools is “morally wrong … legally wrong … economically wrong,” and McCrummen’s WaPo article quotes NAACP president Benjamin Jealous blaming the Tea Party:
So far, all the chatter we heard from tea partyers has not manifested in actually putting in place retrograde policies. But this is one place where they have literally attempted to turn back the clock.
This quote from McCrummen’s article has itself been widely quoted, and Jealous may well have said it somewhere — it’s certainly the sort of thing he would say — but it appears nowhere in the source McCrummen linked.
What is noteworthy about both the Post article and Secretary Duncan’s letter is their fundamental misunderstanding of Brown v. Board of Education, a misunderstanding that is now endemic to contemporary liberalism. Writing in the Post last fall McCrummen and Michael Birnbaum praised a new study touting the “benefits of economic integration” because
it lends fresh support to an idea as old as the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954: Segregated schools — in this case, separated by economics, not law — are rarely as good as diverse ones at educating low-income students.
McCrummen makes the same point in her January 12 Post article, describing Wake County as
the center of a fierce debate over the principle first enshrined in the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education: that diversity and quality education go hand in hand.
I suspect that neither McCrummen nor her editor has actually read the Brown decision, since neither that decision nor any of the briefs for the plaintiffs, nor their oral arguments, said anything about “diversity,” much less “enshrined” it as a fundamental principle.
The day after McCrummen’s article the Post printed a letter from Education Secretary Duncan manifesting the same mistaken belief that Brown enshrined “diversity.” He found it “troubling to see North Carolina’s Wake County School Board taking steps to reverse a long-standing policy to promote racial diversity in its schools,” promised an investigation, and called for “a conversation among educators, parents and students across America about our core values.” Duncan obviously does not believe “our core values” include what Gunnar Myrdal famously called the “American Creed,” the principle that individuals should be treated without regard to race.
How odd that Duncan so readily admits what the Wake County busing advocates make such an effort to disguise: that the busing to which they are so devoted is really all about racial balance, with “economic integration” being the camouflage they hope will allow it to sneak in undetected. You’d think the secretary of education would know that if Wake County’s prior purpose was what he says it was and still recommends — “to promote racial diversity in its schools” — it would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Parents Involved, which invalidated classifying students by race and using that classification in their school assignments.
Ultimately, however, what is most disturbing about the liberals’ Brown-worship is that they so fundamentally misunderstand their deity. They worship Brown; they worship “diversity;” so they are forced to conclude that Brown sanctified “diversity.” It didn’t.
As Chief Justice Roberts stated in Parents Involved, what the Court held in Brown is precisely what the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked it to hold:
the position of the plaintiffs in Brown was spelled out in their brief and could not have been clearer: “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from according differential treatment to American children on the basis of their color or race [...].” As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court [...].
Not only was “diversity” not “enshrined” or even mentioned in Brown, it was actually rejected as a goal by the plaintiffs. “The only thing that we ask for,” Thurgood Marshall argued,
is that the state-imposed racial segregation be taken off, and to leave the county school board, the county people, the district people, to work out their own solution of the problem to assign children on any reasonable basis [other than race] they want to assign them on. [p. 47]
What about “de facto segregation,” now often referred to — as Secretary Duncan just did in his letter — as “racial isolation”? Again, Marshall couldn’t have been more specific about what the Brown plaintiffs sought (and received). “My emphasis,” he insisted,
is that all we are asking for is to take off this state-imposed segregation. It is the state-imposed part of it that affects the individual children. [p. 49]
Marshall was pressed hard on this point by Justice Frankfurter:
Justice Frankfurter: You mean, if we reverse, it will not entitle every mother to have her child go to a nonsegregated school in Clarendon County?
Mr. Marshall: No, sir.
Justice Frankfurter: What will it do? Would you mind spelling this out? What would happen?
Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir. The school board, I assume, would find some other [non-racial] method of distributing the children…. I think whatever district lines they draw, if it can be shown that those lines are drawn on the basis of race or color, then I think they would violate the injunction. If the lines are drawn on a natural basis, without regard to race or color, then I think that nobody would have any complaint. [47–48]
It is worth recalling what The Washington Post, Secretary Duncan, et al. seem conveniently to forget whenever they discuss parents opposed to busing: the complaint of Linda Brown, Ethel Louise Belton, and the other black children on whose behalf Brown was brought is that they were barred from attending their neighborhood schools because of their race. Even Vera and Darius Swann in Charlotte filed the complaint that ultimately led to Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education because their 6-year old son James was refused permission to attend an integrated school that was close to their home.
Finally, it is true that the Brown record is filled with arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to and does not prohibit reasonable classification based on race, and that courts, even the Supreme Court, have no business telling states or local school boards how to assign their students. “Your Honors do not sit,” as one attorney put it, “and cannot sit as a glorified Board of Education….” [p. 216]
Those arguments, however, were all made by attorneys defending the racial assignment policies that the plaintiffs attacked. They lost. The Washington Post and Secretary Duncan to the contrary notwithstanding, the principle and the core value that Brown “enshrined” is that students (and by extension, others) may not be burdened by the state because of their race — not the conflicting principle that cities may — or, according to some, must — impose burdens based on race to promote integration.
In the realm of social affairs, there is always a four-part logic to be applied, along with associated categories. In this situation, they include:
1) races forced to be separate;
2) the absence of (1), with the result that there is some racial commingling, and there is also some separation, all based on criteria or goals unrelated to race;
3) races forced to commingle;
4) the absence of (3), in which again the result is that there is some commingling, and there is also some separation, all based on criteria or goals unrelated to race.
Note that while categories 2 and 4 may look similar in terms of results, they are not the same in terms of how they were arrived at, with associated differences in the words, laws, regulations, and customs applied to describe and/or maintain their state.
This four-part logic is almost impossible for progressives to understand… it is far too subtle for them, and therefore requires too much intellectual rigor which the shifting sands of their subjective value system cannot encompass. They inevitably revert to a sophomoric binary either-or logic, and then have the gall to blithely accuse their opponents of being ‘Manichean’. Alternatively, conservatives, while not necessarily articulating this quadripartite logic, nonetheless employ it consistently and almost instinctually as a cornerstone by which to arrive at traditionalist principles and resultant solutions.
It is no surprise that they are misapplying Brown v. Board, as that is the standard pattern:
1. Determine your position and desired outcome.
2. Choose a well-respected law, ruling or reference that is even tangentially associated with the topic.
3. Claim 1 is right because 2 says so.
Black is beautiful, except when it’s not.
William Barber=idiot.
Black Americans supposedly hate racism, except when it benefits them.
The multi-generational hangover from slavery and Jim Crow that black Americans are alleged to suffer won’t be solved by the biggest cup of black coffee ever brewed since such a hangover in fact does not exist, though it is taken as gospel by delusional white liberals and black Americans themselves, both devoid of even a shred of common sense when it comes to this issue.
The idea of advancement through osmosis is debauched excuse mongering.
I worked in NC for a year (construction) before bringing my family with four kids in school here summer 2001. Watched the local news some afternoons that I wasn’t working that late and determined that Wake County was insane. They had just stopped race based busing and what I gathered was that half the shouting was about year round vrs conventional school year schools. At that time I don’t recall hearing the word diversity but might have missed it since I knew I didn’t want anything to do with Wake County.
At any rate the argument isn’t just about “Race” it’s about testing. In Johnston County (next to
Wake) the subject of busing students from poorer eastern Johnston to more affluent Western Johnston schools which does better on mandated tests. However the idea of “economic diversity” busing is always dropped quickly because we are um sane. If the Feds weren’t involved and mandated testing (money)weren’t part of the equation the local discussion could become calmer.
As for the Tea Party element the Wake County school board elections were in 2009 before the TP got rolling.
For the record only people living in Cary (Containment Area for Relocated Yankees)care what the Washington Post thinks.
This is an important article. Most people do not know that “diversity” education was a result of a liberal accommodation to the urban riots of the mid 1960s. See http://clarespark.com/2011/02/11/undoing-multiculturalism/ and the blog preceding it: http://clarespark.com/2011/02/10/multiculturalism-cui-bono/. It is appalling that leading journalists have erased the actual, verifiable moves of liberal elites who have the nerve to complain about minority education when it is they who have caved to teachers’ unions and to a protofascist racialist discourse. Try vouchers, guys.
“Diversity” or any other form of social engineering has nothing to do with education. It has everything to do with indoctrination and with partisan political advantage. The more time, attention, and money spent on such things, the less remains for actual education.
That is one more reason why so many families have turned to homeschooling.
Perhaps the problem is the attempt to deliberately socially engineer multiculturalism. For me, the goal of multiculturalism has always been an attempt to understand “other,” those who see world differently. This is a personal lifestyle choice. I have a perspective that others who have not shared my experiences may not truly understand or appreciate. I assume that other Americans from other walks have equally unique perspectives that may not fully understand. I try to appreciate what is worth appreciating.
As a person interested in bridging gaps, I seek out opportunities to understand others with different perspectives (That is why I read PJM). That does not mean that I throw common sense away and blindly accept everything I see as “culturally different” and therefore okay. For example, no matter how much my Muslim colleagues try to make me understand the rules behind women and covering, I still see women in that culture as oppressed. Oppression is oppression and should be dealt with, not shrouded in a cultural cloak of safety. For that reason, I confront any young person I hear who throws the N-word around flippantly.
Furthermore, understanding the culture of others gives us insight for how to deal with potential enemy’s to our peace. How can one effectively turn the tide of radical Islam if we do not truly understand the Koran or the specific cultural dynamics of the people we are fighting?
For me and others who think like me, adhering to multicultural principles means I approach others with an open mind and judge each person (and culture) for his or her merit. It also means that I understand that each person’s personal heritage is as precious to them as mine is to me; therefore, I watch what I say and how I say it because I would prefer not to deliberately offend those who are different than me. But in order for us to reach common ground or to ensure that all people are afford the right to the pursuit of happiness, we may end up saying and doing things that others may find offensive.
Finally, I do not believe that we will reach post racial America by ignoring differences. We need to learn about them so we can create dialogue to get past those differences. In the end, for me, saying that I believe in multiculturalism means that I actively seek information and understanding.
Diversity is a codeword for the Balkanization of American society intentionally engineered by postmodernists in order to expand their political constituencies and power. These are the socialists/Marxists who lost the economic and political debate in the 20th century about the value of socialism and shifted their argument to postmodernism. They create victim classes (race, gender, sexual preference, etc.) and gain political power using guilt to secure government favors for them. It matters not that their tactics invariably involve invidious discrimination against other people because those other people are from the classes who they say suppressed the victims. You need to read Stephen Hicks’ book, “Explaining Postmodernism.”. Dr. Hicks has posted the book and it can be viewed or downloaded at http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hicks-ep-full.pdf
This is a very dangerous philosophy and it has even permeated the Defense establishment. The Chief of Naval Operations recently said that “diversity” is the number one goal at the Naval Academy (whatever happened to graduating the best possible military officer?) — and unfortunately it is beginning to show in the quality of some of the officers that graduate from that institution. For more information on that sad state of affairs, Google “Bruce Fleming” and USNA.
The whole idea of setting up groups and attributing guilt or victimization to all of the individuals in the group has been the hallmark of politics in the past 50+ years. It is an obviously flawed collectivist notion that has bamboozled almost everyone who is active in the political process. Those who are not bamboozled and understand the game are largely of two types: (1) those people who are cynically using the tactic to gain political power and (2) those even more culpable people who understand the game but cower before the postmodernists and fail to publicly denounce them and their game.
A New Look at Segregation
“Segregation” is one of those buzzwords employed by social engineers and meant to stir up agita in white people who are led to believe they are complicit in some sort of crime and angst in blacks who are convinced they have been victims of discrimination. The term amounts to a shibboleth comparable to “McCarthyism” which is tossed around whenever some disloyal individual or group is caught acting disloyally.
In fact, as used today, “segregation” is less a crime of discrimination as it is a societal and geographical anomoly misused to suggest racial inequities. Those inequities exist, but not because of racism.
Thanks to the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the days of Selma and Bull Connor and George Wallace are long gone and in its stead are de facto racially imbalanced schools and communities which have as little in common with the cause of earlier civil rights struggles as Rosa Parks has with Condi Rice.
It may seem simplistic to say, “It is what it is” but, in truth it is what it is and always will be as it is until blacks adopt Bill Cosby’s rejected philosophy that blacks should take full responsibility for their lives instead of blaming whites and segregation for who and what they are, for where they live, and for where they work and where their kids go to school.
A scathing study on a Census Bureau American Community survey shows that Long Island ranks as the nation’s seventh most segregated of 50 major metropolitan areas, a situation which “experts” blame on “long-standing restrictive housing patterns” which “government officials say they’re trying to address . . . through fair housing laws.”
I say, Bully for them, even if they are ignoring segregation realities, namely the lack of education, the lack of stability in black families, and the resultant lack of sufficient financial resources to enable blacks to rise above their current statuses. Add to those Bill Cosby’s view . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3730)