Post-Gazette Editorial – 7/1/07

This page was last updated on July 3, 2007.

Hard lesson: Bush’s court takes a profound step on schools; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; July 1, 2007.

As you read this critique, remember the PG is arguing in favor of race-based discrimination by government.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans who believe in a diverse society, racial tolerance and equal opportunity may be wondering what country they live in, now that the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have repudiated half a century of social change.

“We are referring, of course, to the 5-4 decision Thursday by an unabashedly conservative court that public school districts can no longer seek or maintain integration by taking account of a student’s race. This stunning ruling, which essentially turns on its head the 1954 landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing segregated schools, should come as no surprise.”

[RWC] The ruling does not turn “on its head the 1954 landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.” Brown was about forced assignment of students to schools based on race. So were the Louisville and Seattle cases. Here’s the difference. In the Brown case, the race-based discrimination was intended to segregate the students. In the Louisville and Seattle cases, the discrimination was intended to maintain some arbitrary racial mix at district schools. The bottom line is, discrimination is discrimination regardless of the stated intent.

“When a nation elects someone like George W. Bush, not once but twice, this is the kind of Supreme Court it gets. The same crowd that long railed against ‘activist’ judges has tipped the court in this unfortunate direction with its most recent appointments, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer faulted the majority for taking a ‘radical’ turn away from settled law. So much for the Roberts court putting a cork in judicial activism.”

[RWC] The PG apparently has a different definition of “judicial activism” than most of us. Most of us define judicial activism as making rulings based on personal policy preferences instead of the written law. The PG apparently believes the definition includes overturning previous bad “settled law.” In any case, as I noted above, this ruling didn’t overturn Brown. Indeed, the ruling confirmed Brown.

The PG should have picked a different champion. As a reminder, in 2005 Justice Breyer ruled in favor of overturning previous eminent domain law in Kelo v. New London when he ruled it was OK for government to take private property and give it to another person as long as it resulted in greater tax revenue. You won’t be surprised to recall the PG supported that ruling.

It’s too bad for the PG is doesn’t understand the implication of its position. Using the PG’s definition, the Brown case was an instance of judicial activism because it overturned previous Supreme Court rulings such as Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result, using the PG’s definition, the 1954 Court should have ruled against Brown because “separate but equal” was “settled law.”

“Voters would be wise take a lesson for 2008: Their vote for president will be a vote that further shapes the court.”

[RWC] Absolutely. That’s why it’s important to elect real conservatives.

“Because of this case, which originated in Seattle, Wash., and Louisville, Ky., schools may now be forced to rethink their approach to assigning students. Even Pittsburgh, with its successful magnet school system, will begin a review of its program.”

[RWC] I would expect the magnet programs are OK unless they include racial quotas.

“But this much is clear. Americans who believe in strong schools must focus on how to get them to deliver good educations -- for black children, white children and all students regardless of color. Complicating that in 2007 is the federal government’s retrenched domestic policy, which has been robbed of funds by a misguided war in Iraq, and too many bad personal choices by individuals, which have compounded the poverty and dysfunction of many households.”

[RWC] Can the PG list any domestic programs whose spending has been cut? Don’t hold your breath waiting. Besides, why should the feds be spending any taxpayer dollars on education? The last time I read the Constitution, it said nothing about education being a responsibility of the federal government.

“Ensuring effective education is a complicated challenge with no easy solution. But, just the same, it’s important that society come to grips with it -- for the sake of our cities, for the health of our families, for the future of America’s children.

“In the meantime, the nation is stuck with this right-wing court. America’s schools must provide equal access to good education in spite of it.”

[RWC] Here are two quotes from the ruling the PG didn’t share. You will see why.

Chief Justice John Roberts: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Justice Clarence Thomas: “What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today. … The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students’ race. Because ‘[o]ur Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,’ such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional. Plessy, supra, at 559 (Harlan, J., dissenting).”