The Supreme Court has issued its first major decision on school desegregation in twelve years, a decision affirming the goal of integrated education as a compelling interest but rejecting the means that many school districts use to maintain some integration in a rapidly resegregating society. This decision is another step backward following the Court's three decisions limiting mandatory desegregation in the l990's. In a country which now has more than 40% nonwhite students and millions in segregated schools that have been proven to be unequal in the statistics produced by the Administration's own No Child Left Behind Act, the Court has taken the extraordinary step of rejecting modest efforts that have produced desegregated education in two districts that have voluntarily implemented such policies. I believe this decision will be seen as shameful and very hard to explain in the future.
The decision, however, could have been worse and leaves some opportunity to find other ways to indirectly pursue diverse schools. Some techniques such as school site selection, minor boundary adjustments and active, targeted recruitment for schools of choice are still permitted in voluntary plans. This would be useful mostly in small districts or areas with minor pockets of segregation. It would be permissible to consider race as one of multiple factors in a student assignment plan when considering each individual application. These techniques are more burdensome to school districts and will, according to research and experience, be less effective, but they can limit the extent of resegregation and preserve some diversity that would otherwise be lost. There is a great deal of work to be done in helping communities figure out the best path from here, evaluating what happens in affected districts, and answering some of the questions and factual errors in some of the opinions.
The battle over race and educational opportunity in American society has been very actively waged for generations. It is not over. This Court, by the narrowest of margins, has rejected policies supported unanimously by earlier Courts—policies that Justices earlier required districts to implement. Our pledge is two-fold: 1) to help districts achieve what can be achieved in this divided and somewhat muddled set of decisions and 2) to help prepare the research and advocacy groundwork and agenda, as the researchers at Howard University did so long ago, for future Courts and future decisions that will bring back to life a vivid and effective vision of the goal of Brown v. Education. We are very pleased to join with research centers across the U.S. in saying that though this decision is a serious failure by the Supreme Court, we will respond to the challenge and support the vision of Brown which promised to bring down the walls of racial separation and inequality in this nation's schools.
Gary Orfield
Resources available on the CRP website ( http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/policy/court/voltint.php):
Joint Statement from Nine University-Based Civil Rights Centers: http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/policy/court/voltint_joint_full_statement.php
Spanish-language statement: http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/policy/court/voltint_linguistic_spanish.php
Summary of Social Science Evidence Regarding the Benefits of Integrated Schools and Harms of Segregated Schools: http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/policy/SSSTalkingPoints.pdf
Segregation Fact Sheet: http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/policy/StateofSegregation.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment