RACE IN SCHOOLS
grandpa_shig
5,799 Posts
thoughts? yes, this is bait. of sorts. but also very interesting.
grandpa_shig
5,799 Posts
Comments
Colleges are next.
Edit: Talking about colleges.
Throwing it in Reverse:
How the Post-"Busing" Era has led to a new Segregation
In a watershed moment in U.S. history, the Supreme Court of the United States obliterated the prevailing racial segregation in America's public school system in the 1954 case Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. (1954) with the crack of a gavel. Quoting Chief Justice Earl Warren, who authored the unanimous opinion of the court, "Here there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other 'tangible' factors" (Brown I, 1954), a statement either ignorant of the prevailing reality in 1954 or laughable considering how quickly this equality eroded once the court's decision became law.
However, Chief Justice Warren peered into the future later on in the court's opinion, stating that separating Negro children from children of "similar age and qualifications" based on race "generates of feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone" (Brown I, 1954).
The Role of the Federal Housing Agency
During the Great Depression, the United States government founded the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to help Americans purchase their very own home. As the year suggests, the policies enacted by the FHA made white, middle-class Americans the overwhelming beneficiaries. Steeped in a society well accustomed to segregationist laws and policies dating back to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the FHA were world-class practitioners of urban flight. In his book Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, Kenneth Jackson quotes the eugenics-tinged words of the FHA's Underwriting Manual: "subdivision regulations and suitable restrictive covenants" that would be "superior to any mortgage" (Jackson, 1984, p. 208). Even more obscenely, an assistant undoncommissioner of the FHA was on the record stating that the FHA "has never insured a housing project of mixed occupancy [because] such projects would in a short period of time become all-Negro" (Jackson, 1984, p. 208). This was in 1948. In 1949 the U.S. Housing Authority developed legislation in which communities were to decide whether or not they wanted federally assisted housing, in which case, if they chose to take on federal assistance, allocated land to be developed, which disproportionately fell on the poor side of town. And from the churned up ashes of these neighborhoods came the new housing projects, with their huge, Chicago-used wings spreading in an inviting manner, beckoning the newly displaced.
So with the boom in "white flight" fully supported by institutional racism well underway, we can begin to the necessity for the busing programs that popped up following Brown.
Busing Laws
Busing has its roots in Brown, which was decided in two parts from 1954 to 1955: Brown I decided that segregation is unconstitutional; Brown II decided that states need to comply with Brown I "with all deliberate speed" (Brown II, 1955). However, if Brown II is where busing sprung from, then the 1971 case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) is the sapling. Swann investigates "four problem areas" relative to student assignment, the most important being transportation, which is scrutinized under the newly designed "Finger" plan. One of the problems the Finger plan tries to solve was the nearly unlimited transfer privileges camouflaged under a "freedom of [school] choice" for students in the Charlotte school district both prior to and after Green v. County School Board of New Kent Countyet al. (1968).
At the time, Swann attempted to undo the two-school system operating in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system and, by extension, across the United States. According to the statistics given in the ruling, during the 1968-1969 school year the system served approximately 84,000 students in 107 schools, ~71% white and ~29% black. As of June 1969 there were approximately 24,000 black students in the system, of whom 21,000 attended schools within Charlotte proper. Two-thirds of those 21,000 attended 21 schools totally comprised of black students or greater than 99% (Swann, 1971).
The latest Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district figures I could find (2005) put the number of schools in the district at 150;the total number of students enrolled at 126,903; the ethnic distribution at 37.6% white and 43.1% black (among others) . So, in the span of 34 years following the implimentation of busing laws, the white population in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system has dropped in half.
Resegregation
It comes as no surprise that as desegregation efforts began, they were met with resistance, capitulation to the law, U-Haul renting, and, ultimately, new legislation that wittled away at the progress of Brown and Swann. One such case is Milliken v. Bradley (1974), one of the more narrowly decided cases discussed (5-4), which adheres to the precedent set in Brown, but undeniably permits white flight. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Berger seems fearful of trampling upon school district jurisdiction, and, despite reaffirming the decision of Swann [read: the elimination of dual school systems in favor of creating unitary systems (through, but not limited to busing)], upheld the practice of dual systems under the guise of school district independence, with Justice Stewart piping in during his concurring opinion about ???[the] traditions of local control of schools??? (Milliken, 1974). Contrarily, Justices White, Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall take the majority to task over what they deem dubious evidence for school district independence, citing Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which remarks that ???[[p]olitical subdivisions] have been traditionally regarded as subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State to assist in the carrying out of state governmental functions??? (Reynolds, 1964).
Alas, Milliken becomes law premised on the concepts of school district independence and ???not require[ing] any particular racial balance??? (Milliken, 1974).
Which is exactly what doomed two mothers's efforts to enroll their children into elite, magnet middle schools. In her amply-titled article, Public School Choice at the Intersection of Voluntary Integration and Not-So-Good Neighborhood Schools: Lessons From Parents??? Experiences, the amply-named Lois Andr??-Bechely explores the unfair entry practices occurring in the Deluca Unified School District (Deluca USD).
Andr??-Bechely's research draws on interview data of ???parents, community advisors, and administrators??? (Andr??-Bechely, 2005, p. 274 ) taken from the school choice process in Deluca USD, the choices being magnet schools, voluntary integration transfers to public schools, open enrollment, a new advanced studies program using open enrollment option, charter schools, and various permits to opt out of neighborhood schools. As suspect as the research method seems (and how unaccostumed we are to experiential method-making), we cannot instantly discount the interview-yielding experiences of the three mothers.
Andr??-Bechely unites her research around three mothers ???shar[ing] a common interest in getting their children into the same popular middle school??? (Andr??-Bechely, 2005, p. 282). However, they did not share a similar experience in getting their children into the Carnegie Preparatory Magnet School.
Brenda, a Hispanic mother, and her experience is the first to be scrutinized. Moving back to Milliken for a moment, Brenda's frustration led to her admission that she wished she was ???not Hispanic??? (Andr??-Bechely, 2005, p. 284). This stemmed from a conversation with an administrator at Carnegie, who had no answer to Brenda's complaint that, although Deluca consists of 60% Hispanic, Carnegie serves only 9% Hispanic st udents. It should be noted that Carnegie was the closest school to Brenda's home.
Robin, an African American mother, faced similar problems in trying to enroll her daughter in Carnegie, also right down the street. Knowing her daughter had been identified as gifted during elementary school, she attempted to have her daughter enrolled in Carnegie, only to have her enrolled in so-called lower schools because of a point system ??? unfortunately not discussed. One hypothesis is that Robin accidentally selected the Transportation for Participating Schools (TPS) program option, a program wherein school districts decide which school the student will go to based on established transportation routes. Andr??-Bechely argues that Robin's next choice, a school serving gifted students called El Rancho, with a 40% white student body would have put her daughter high up on the lottery, taking into account her race and gifted status. Her daughter did not get into this school, either.
The most absurd gerrymandering of racial identity belongs to the last mother, Suzanne, a white mother. Told by an administrator at Spring Street School, a popular elementary magnet, that the school needed more white kids for their new cohort, Suzanne brought the appropriate paperwork to the school and was in. Wanting her younger daughter to also attend Spring Street, Suzanne had a professional psychologist test her child to the tune of a 144 IQ. Since Deluca USD accepts IQ tests administered by their own psychologists, Suzanne arranged a meeting with the principal of Spring Street. I will let the interview transcript tell the rest of the story:
[The principal] Carol looked at them and said, ???Oh my God,??? and I said so you can understand she???s like Michelle, and she cannot go to our local school. You have to understand that. She goes, ???Oh, I understand that. What can we do???? She said, ???Well, you know, we really need Native American kids here. Are your kids Native Americans Ha-Ha-Ha.??? I said, ???Well as a matter of fact their dad is 1/4 Native American.??? And she went, ???Oh, my God. They should be here as Native Americans. They???d be in like Flynn.??? And I went, ???Oh.??? (Andr??-Bechely, 2005, p. 292)
The girls' father had never identified himself as Native American, but after completing the verification process necesssary to satisfy Deluca USD, Suzanne's children were officially Native American. During the high school magnet application process, Suzanne's target high school desired white students in order to comply with integration formulas, to which she replied, ???Would it be better for her to be Native American or White???? (Andr??-Bechely, 2005, p. 292). One wonders if a reverse ???one drop rule??? would work in favor of Brenda's or Robin's children if, say, the childrens' father were a quarter white?
In 1999, Richard A. Pride and Harry Vaughn May, Jr. published Neighborhood School Again? Race, Educational Interest, and Traditional Values. Drawing on data collected and combined from random-digit designed surveys conducted in October of 1995 and 1996, Pride and May, Jr. scrutinized questions posed during said surveys. Such topical questions asked respondents about his or her attitudes towards ???busing, racial attitudes, and social values??? (Pride and May, Jr., 1999, p. 392).
Pride's and May, Jr.'s measurements focused on post-busing preferences by asking respondents if they had a choice, would they rather send their child to the school nearest their home, or to a school with programs better suited to their child, farther away, and in the neighborhood of another race (Pride and May, Jr., 1999, p. 392). The responses broke down into the following reasons/categories: direct, educational self-interest; racial attitudes; traditional cultural values; and perceptions of busing's success or failure. The research displayed a correlation between certain factors, such as indications that if a respondent viewed differences between the races (blacks versus whites), he or she was religious, he or she belonged to a traditional culture (politically conservative and dislikes diversity), he or she perceived busing policies negatively (busing increases prejudice, decreases black achievement, and decreases white achievement), and that he or she wanted to end busing for racial balance (supports neighborhood schools).
Due to the nature of drawing positive correlations, the study portrays religious whites as backwater bumpkins yet, strangely, responses given by blacks tell that 21% of blacks viewed themselves a less able race (in contrast to 9% whites holding this view). The trusty barometers of ???conservativeness??? (ie. Abortion, Creationism, and prayer in schools) failed to cleave the races; in fact, 82% of blacks supported beginning the day with a prayer (12% higher than whites), less than 20% of blacks and whites supported Creationism in the schools, and nearly identical percentages of blacks and whites supported abortion never or in rare cases (Pride and May, Jr., 1999, p. 407-408). Nevertheless, white respondents disproportionately favored ridding the Nashville school districts of busing, favoring the policies that evolved from Milliken.
Did the Supreme Court of the United States lose interest in desegregation? Richard C. Hunter and Saran Donahoo attempt to answer this question in their article The Implementation of Brown in Achieving Unitary Status.
The most glaring reason this is true ??? I am saying it is ??? comes in the complexion of the court. At the time of Brown, the high court leaned towards a progressive ???living document??? means of deciding cases, a judicial philosophy utilizing outside sources to fill the perceived gaps in the United States Constitution. Brown's decision owed itself to these outside sources, citing psychological effects on black students. The latter half of the 20th century has been marked be a resurgency in judicial ???strict constructionism,??? a judicial philosophy that relies solely on the words written in the United States Constitution. Many of Brown's critics attack its most quotable passage ??? the ???generates a feeling of inferiority... affect[ing] their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone??? passage quoted earlier ??? for focusing on the irrelevant psychological arguments instead of the 14th Amendment-violating segregation by race (Missouri, 1995).
Hunter and Donahoo divide their article to the corresponding periods of Supreme Court support for school desegregation. The first period spans 1958 to 1971, the second period from 1973 to 1982, and the final era occurs in a smattering of court decision in recent times. The first period, they argue, functioned under Brown; that is, the High Court took a stern approach to finding remedies for segregation that basically amounted to father-knows-best. Although the Court gave districts the option and ability to decide their own fate, many districts desperately clung to the old ways by enacting desegregation plans through programs allowing choice. The Court abruptly shut these down in Green and Monroe v. Board of Commissioners under the auspice of, as Hunter and Donahoo note, said districts not acting ???with all deliberate speed??? (Brown II, 1955).
The next era was marked by segregation troubles in interdistrict relationships, which is heard in the opinions written by some of the newer characters (including future-now-former Chief Justice Rehnquist), who argued in Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1 that segregation in one district does not nessecitate district-wide remedies (Hunter and Donahoo, 2004, p. 347). As the 70s rolled on, more and more Supreme Court decisions granted virtual ???Get out of Brown Free??? cards to segregated school districts by applying the Rehnquist argument, most notably in Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman (1977).
Hunter and Donahoo contend that, finally, as if to wash its hands of the issue of segregation, the Supreme Court ruled in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (1991) that Oklahoma City's school board had met its obligations to desegre gate under orders mapped out in 1972 and 1977, a mere 30 years later (never mind the 14th Amendment ratification in the mid-1800s, which theoretically should have ended segregation approximately100 years before Brown). In one last major erosion of desegregation rulings, the Court in Freemanv. Pitts ruled 5-3 that districts may lift portions of desegregation orders once they are met.
Who was this written for? Is there a better formatted version online I can read/download?
IN any case, when I was scouting out potential neighborhood schools for my daughter, I tried to avoid any schools with over a 50% majority of any one ethnicity. I grew up in a mostly white/Asian school district and felt like I missed out on interacting with a more realistic social mixture.
The republican backlash will grow as Americans start to realize that our rights are being eroded. Embolden by the new supreme court states are passing laws taking away women's rights. The Feds are treating all menstruating girls and women as pre-pregnant, requiring that they take precautions to protect potential pregnancies. The Senate is trying to write discrimination into the constitution.
Overturning affirmative action will be seen as further erosion of rights. Americans will come to understand that affirmative action was an unobtrusive fair and just way to address pass injustices.
The political pendulum will swing back to the center.
Unfortunately, I had to tag on some tug-at-the-heart-strings ending, but you get the idea.
www.d.umn.edu/~bott0067/SegregationPaper.doc
www.d.umn.edu/~bott0067/SegregationPaper.pdf