On Monday, December 4, the United States Supreme Court will hear two cases that will have long lasting implications for racial equality in the United States educational system. The two cases, Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, will determine the continued legality of measures to desegregate K-12 public schools and affirmative action programs at the college level. A variety of civil rights and other organizations are organizing in response to the cases, highlighting the fact that the two Supreme Court rulings will be major rulings that threaten to overturn the Brown v. Board of Education ruling and return the segregation of Plessy v. Furguson’s “separate but equal” doctrine. This issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court in 52 years, and after a period of resistance on the part of whites to desegregation and a period of substantial progress, public schools in the United States are now more segregated than they were in 1970. Moreover, the legal challenges to diversity programs are a reminder that vigilance is necessary in order to counteract organized forces in the United States that work to perpetuate racism.
At issue with the Brown vs. Education decision are two programs, one in Louisville and one in Seattle, that sought to promote integration while “prioritizing parental choice and community schools.” In both cases, lawsuits challenging the programs were brought by white parents whose children were not granted their first choice of schools, with the parents arguing that this was a “denial” of their choice and an act of racial discrimination. However, the programs are limited in scope and apply primarily to parents who want their children to attend schools outside of their district. In Louisville, 95% of students attend the school of their choice even with a program that considers race as a means of assigning students to school’s in order to create a diverse learning environment for the benefit of all students. Similarly in Seattle, students were allowed to rank their school choices in order of preference and then were assigned using a system that considers race in order to foster a diverse learning environment. Roughly 80% of students in Seattle were granted their first choice. In both cases, lower courts ruled that the benefits of diverse learning environments justify the use of race and emphasized the fact that the consideration of race is used to benefit all students and not as a means of denying one race access while giving preferential treatment to another. In a brief filed in support of the school districts, the NAACP has argued that the Supreme Court has a history of recognizing the success of efforts to address de facto segregation, allowing such policies to operate without court interference, and respecting the autonomy of local school authorities to determine their own policies in light of their unique geographical and demographical concerns. Affirmative action is broadly up for review with these cases as well, with the cases being seen as a test to see where the new Supreme Court–with Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito who were appointed last year–stand on the question of affirmative action. While there is an ongoing debate as to what extent the aforementioned programs qualify as affirmative action (even among conservatives), a ruling that strikes down these programs could be seen as sign that the Court opposes affirmative action. Moreover, the Court has introduced affirmative action into the discussion, with its questions in the case asking lawyers to consider the implications of the 2003 Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action.
Earlier this year, the Bush administration filed legal briefs supporting white parents who are challenging voluntary school integration programs. According to the Los Angeles Times, United States Solicitor General Paul D. Clement has urged the Supreme Court to rule that “the use of a racial classification to achieve a desired racial balance in public schools” is comparable to racial segregation and is constitutionally unacceptable. Clement’s briefing argues that the Supreme Court needs to further clarify the Court’s intent in their 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling and that programs designed to achieve diverse schools by adjusting admissions programs in order to promote racial diversity are unconstitutional. Moreover, Clement argued that “the effects of past de jure segregation have been remedied” and that now segregation cannot be replaced by “de jure discrimination.” Such an argument clearly ignores the realities of race in the United States and makes no mention of the fact that the United States remains an incredibly segregated society with an educational system in which dramatic differences exist in the quality of education for people of color verses white students. Clement’s poor understanding of race in the United States is further shown when he argues that schools can only use “race-based measures” when working to “eliminate the vestiges of past discrimination” and not to achieve “integration.” In a society based on institutionalized white supremacy, it is impossible to make such distinctions and is incredibly dangerous to state that the legacy of oppression and racism has been overcome simply because de jure discrimination has “ended” on paper.
In addition to legal briefs filed by organizations seeking to preserve Brown v. the Board of Education and affirmative action programs, a variety of organizations are joining a protest called by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). Endorsers of the protest include a host of national organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, the NAACP, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and several labor unions. Several groups from Michigan–including C.L.O.U.D. N.I.N.E. at Grand Valley State University–have also endorsed the protest. BAMN has labeled the political battle over these cases “the fight of our lifetime” and is asserting that the cases will be decided for political and not just legal reasons. Consequently, BAMN views the protests as an imperative extension of their organizing around issues of educational apartheid and is urging people to make both this protest and ongoing organizing efforts a priority.
