3,798 research outputs found

    The Conscience of a Court

    Get PDF
    The author explains his conclusion that the Supreme Court, as a matter of conscience, considers racial discrimination to be good for America. That conclusion, he argues, offers the only plausible account of the Court\u27s repeated insistence on displacing populist efforts to promote racial equality with the Court\u27s own, more-regressive, version of expedient racial politics. Although the Court has had what is at best a checkered history when called upon to adjudicate claims of racial injustice, until now, the contemporary Court might arguably have been accorded the benefit of the doubt. But after its five-to-four ruling in the 2007 Resegregation case, the need to acknowledge the influence of intentional discrimination on the Court\u27s racial decisions seems inescapable. In part I of this article the author discusses the Resegregation case (parents involved in Community Schools v. Seatle School District No. 1) and describes how difficult it is to view that case as anything other than a deliberately disingenuous distortion of Brown v. Board of Education. In part II he describes Krugman\u27s account of the ways in which movement conservatism has enlisted tacit appeals to white racial prejudice as a strategy for prompting white middle-class citizens to vote in ways that are consistent with the interests of the rich rather than the interests of the middle class. Part III describes the author\u27s view of the interaction between movement conservatism and Supreme Court constitutional hegemony, arguing that this interaction creates a judicial plutocracy that can use race to advance the political agenda of the wealthy. The article concludes by expressing the hope that the Supreme Court so overplayed its hand in the Resegregation case that the Court will no longer be able to pass off its conservative racial agenda as the product of detached constitutional exposition. However, the author states that he offers this conclusion with a healthy dose of pessimism, rather than the sense of pragmatic anticipation

    Disintegration

    Get PDF
    The silver lining behind the Supreme Court\u27s decision to disintegrate the Seattle and Louisville public schools is that the decision also runs the risk of disintegrating judicial review. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 holds that the Constitution bars voluntary, race-conscious efforts by two local school boards to retain the racial integration that they worked so hard to achieve after Brown. In so holding, the Court curiously reads the Equal Protection Clause as preventing the use of race to pursue actual equality, and instead insists on a type of formal equality that has historically been associated with thinly veiled efforts to disguise racial oppression--the type of oppression that the Court authorized in upholding the separate-but-equal regime of Plessy. By using the Constitution to protect passive resegregation from active integration, the current Court ends up constitutionalizing the culture\u27s regression to the days of greater racial separation--a separation that Brown found to be inherently unequal. As a result, the new Resegregation decision has not only realigned the current Court with its own racially oppressive past, but it has also distanced the Court from the nation\u27s hope for a racially progressive future. Once the decision is understood in this way, the question becomes whether the case will begin to undermine the legitimacy needed for the Court to continue its activist conception of judicial review. Because the views of the Justices seem so transparently political, the threat to judicial legitimacy that emanates from the Resegregation case may end up exceeding the nation\u27s patience for continued Supreme Court interference in the nation\u27s racial policymaking process. There can be no assurance that the case will prompt such a reconsideration of judicial review. Part I of this article describes the manner in which the Resegregation decision has marginalized the importance of racial integration. Part I.A. describes the Seattle and Louisville integration plans under consideration in the case. Part I.B. describes the various Supreme Court opinions issued in the decision invalidating those plans. Part II discusses the impact that the Resegregation decision is likely to have on the nation\u27s ever-evolving conception of equality. Part II.A. explains how the decision effectively overrules Brown--by protecting the interests of disappointed white parents at the cost of advancing racial resegregation--despite the fact that it is doctrinally difficult to support such a result. Part lI.B. argues that the plurality opinion of Chief Justice Roberts now gives official recognition to an updated form of racism, in which supposed equality is used as a tool of racial oppression. Part III discusses the effect that the decision is likely to have on the future of judicial review. Part III.A. illustrates that the decision to invalidate the integration plans at issue can best be understood as political rather than doctrinal in nature. Part III.B. expresses the hope that such transparent judicial politics will cause the Supreme Court to lose the perceived legitimacy that it needs to continue supplanting the racial policy preferences adopted by the representative branches of government. The conclusion suggests that, while one may hope for the disintegration of undemocratically activist judicial review, the long persistence of racial oppression in the United States does not afford much basis for optimism in achieving that end

    Separate But (Un)Equal: A Review of Resegregation as Curriculum: The Meaning of the New Racial Segregation in U.S. Public Schools

    Get PDF
    Resegregation as Curriculum: The Meaning of the New Racial Segregation in U.S. Public Schools (2016) by Rosiek and Kinslow exposes the reality of systemic racial resegregation occurring in U.S. public schools. The authors center the stories of students, educators, and community members affected by the resegregation in a powerful narrative that blends critical race theory and agential realism as theoretical frameworks. This book review offers a review of the authors\u27 findings, commentary on their methodology, and recommended audiences

    Case Comment: Desegregating a Demographically Changing School District--\u3cem\u3ePasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler\u3c/em\u3e

    Get PDF
    In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education the Supreme Court suggested, by negative implication, that a court supervising the desegregation of a school district can require school officials to eliminate resegregation caused solely by natural demographic changes if school officials have not yet achieved a unitary system. The Court\u27s holding in Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, however, demonstrates that the Court did not intend this negative implication. Under Spangler, once school officials have eliminated state-imposed segregation from student assignment, the supervising court cannot require school officials to redraw attendance zones to eliminate non-state imposed resegregation even though the school district\u27s transition from a dual to a unitary system is incomplete. Although Spangler is constitutionally justifiable, the decision is unsound because it did not require school officials to prove that the resegregation was not state-imposed

    An Exploratory Case Study of Resegregation in Wake County Public Schools System: Perceptions of Community Stakeholders

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this exploratory case study was to examine community stakeholders’ perceptions of resegregation in Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) in North Carolina. Stakeholder perceptions of resegregation were defined as the stakeholder’s awareness of the change in the racial student demographics in WCPSS since the removal of court-ordered mandates to desegregate. The theory guiding this study was critical race theory, as it is focused on societal and legal constraints placed on individuals based on race or ethnicity, which aligned with this study because stakeholder decisions regarding student school assignment policies can influence student resegregation. The central research question guiding this case study asked, “What are the perceptions of stakeholders about resegregation in the WCPSS?” Purposive and snowball sampling was used to collect data from 11 participants who belong to one of three stakeholder categories: community members with past or present outreach or advocacy work associated with the school district, past and current school administrators, and parents of past or present students enrolled in Wake County Public Schools. Data collection included individual interviews, focus groups, and a reflective questionnaire. Data analysis included interpretive readings and explanation building from the review of individual interview and focus group transcripts as well as the reflective questionnaire responses. The findings of the study showed most participants had a low-level of awareness about resegregation trends and student diversity within WCPSS. The findings of this study indicated factors other than race are potentially causing the shift in student demographics

    Integration in Housing: A Plan for Racial Diversity

    Get PDF
    The Villages of Park Forest and Park Forest South are concerned about the possibility of racial resegregation. The four parts of the plan are as follows: Part I, Why we value integration; Part II, Policy- what we can do to promote integration maintenance; Part III, A discussion of the housing forces which contribute to racial resegregation and; Part IV, A history of housing integration in Park Forest and Park Forest South

    Case Comment: Desegregating a Demographically Changing School District--\u3cem\u3ePasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler\u3c/em\u3e

    Get PDF
    In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education the Supreme Court suggested, by negative implication, that a court supervising the desegregation of a school district can require school officials to eliminate resegregation caused solely by natural demographic changes if school officials have not yet achieved a unitary system. The Court\u27s holding in Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, however, demonstrates that the Court did not intend this negative implication. Under Spangler, once school officials have eliminated state-imposed segregation from student assignment, the supervising court cannot require school officials to redraw attendance zones to eliminate non-state imposed resegregation even though the school district\u27s transition from a dual to a unitary system is incomplete. Although Spangler is constitutionally justifiable, the decision is unsound because it did not require school officials to prove that the resegregation was not state-imposed

    See no evil, hear no evil, stop no evil: How do we uncover and combat the loss of educational opportunity for American poor?

    Get PDF
    In my position paper, I will urge Americans to fulfill the promise of equal educational opportunity and to avoid further entrenchment of the cycle of poverty. Some residents of largely homogeneous New Hampshire tend to be less knowledgeable about issues of racial resegregation, because racial difference is rarely seen and cries of racial inequality are not heard. Additionally some view social class struggles as a problem of remote northern NH or of particular dilapidated cities in the south. My paper will combat these shortsighted views by foregrounding the pervasive lack of educational opportunity for local poor. This will initiate conversation between students and faculty who must be prepared to live in increasingly stratified areas. This paper will also alert citizens to the punitive effects of tax-funded laws, like No Child Left Behind, which are closing down failing schools in poor areas, further abandoning poor children. Finally, it will point toward collective ways in which these problems can be overcome and will highlight relevant coursework as a starting point for concerned students

    Race Ipsa Loquitur

    Get PDF
    The goal of this Article is to make the existence of invidious racial discrimination in the United States so palpable that it can no longer be denied. Part I argues that racial inequality is so pervasive, unconscious, and structural that it has simply become an assumed fixture of United States and is rarely even noticed. Section I.A describes the history of racial subordination in the United States. Section I.B invokes the concept of disparate impact to illustrate the continuing manifestations of invidious discrimination in contemporary culture. Part II describes the manner in which the culture nevertheless chooses to deny the existence of continuing racial discrimination, even in the face of such stark racial disparities. Section II. A attributes this denial to cultural biases that can be conscious, blatant, implicit, or structural. Section II.B describes the way in which the Supreme Court has invoked the doctrinal distractions of intent and racial balance to sanitize the culture’s commitment to racial stratification and divert attention from the Court’s de facto protection of white privilege. The Article concludes that meaningful racial reconciliation could be achieved in the United States only if United States culture were willing to act on a truth about its racial values that it is unlikely ever to admit
    corecore