Wow...now this is bullshit
Associated Press
Supreme Court Looks at Race and Schools
By MARK SHERMAN 12.04.06, 12:07 PM EST
The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with voluntary integration plans in public schools, asking whether Seattle's "Open Choice" program is an acceptable move toward student diversity or another name for illegal racial quotas.
At the start of two hours of argument, the justices referred repeatedly to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that permitted the limited consideration of race to attain a diverse student body on the college level.
Does Seattle's program go too far in assigning some students to schools they didn't request? the justices wanted to know in questioning lawyers for the school district, the Bush administration and white parents whose children were assigned to high schools with heavy minority enrollment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was among those expressing deep skepticism about Seattle's program.
The district seems to be telling its students that "everybody can get a meal," but that only certain people can get "dessert," Kennedy said. Justice Antonin Scalia said it was as though the district was saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."
The justices were referring to the fact that some students have been assigned based on their race to schools they didn't ask to attend. The question, said Kennedy, is whether a student can get into the school the student really prefers.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about making school assignments "based on skin color" and not "any other factor."
Attorney Michael Madden, representing the school district, said race is but one factor, that it is relied on only in some instances and then only at the end of a lengthy process.
Madden drew a distinction between the Seattle school program and the subject of the court's 2003 decision, which narrowly approved the University of Michigan law school affirmative action admissions program.
"This is not like being denied admission to a state's flagship university," Madden told Roberts. The Seattle students are "not being denied admission, they are being redistributed."
Parents in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle are challenging school assignment plans that factor in a student's race in an effort to have individual school populations approximate the racial makeup of the entire system. Federal appeals courts have upheld both programs.
Amid the oral arguments, pro-affirmative action demonstrators bearing "Fight For Equality" placards marched on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court in a brisk wind. A parent-teachers group from Chicago and several civil rights groups were among those sponsoring the demonstration.
Demonstrators chanted "Equal education, not segregation" and "We won't go to the back of the bus, integration is a must." Some held signs that read "Stop racism now." Among the crowd were representatives of the National Organization for Women, the NAACP and students from Howard University.
Though outnumbered, there were some in the crowd from the other side.
"Regardless of how well-motivated, allowing the state to engineer racial mixing only creates racial stereotypes and increases racial tension," said Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm. "The court needs to put an end to state-mandated tinkering with race."
The school policies in contention are designed to keep schools from segregating along the same lines as neighborhoods. In Seattle, only high school students are affected. Louisville's plan applies systemwide.
"The plan has prevented the resegregation that inevitably would result from the community's segregated housing patterns and that most likely would produce many schools that might be perceived as 'failing,'" the Seattle school district said in its brief to the high court.
The Bush administration has taken the side of the parents who are suing the school districts, much as it intervened on behalf of college and graduate students who challenged affirmative action policies before the Supreme Court in 2003.
In 2003, the court upheld race-conscious admissions in higher education in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The cases are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 05-908; and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.
__
Associated Press reporter Matthew Daly contributed from Washington
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Supreme Court Looks at Race and Schools
By MARK SHERMAN 12.04.06, 12:07 PM EST
The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with voluntary integration plans in public schools, asking whether Seattle's "Open Choice" program is an acceptable move toward student diversity or another name for illegal racial quotas.
At the start of two hours of argument, the justices referred repeatedly to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that permitted the limited consideration of race to attain a diverse student body on the college level.
Does Seattle's program go too far in assigning some students to schools they didn't request? the justices wanted to know in questioning lawyers for the school district, the Bush administration and white parents whose children were assigned to high schools with heavy minority enrollment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was among those expressing deep skepticism about Seattle's program.
The district seems to be telling its students that "everybody can get a meal," but that only certain people can get "dessert," Kennedy said. Justice Antonin Scalia said it was as though the district was saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."
The justices were referring to the fact that some students have been assigned based on their race to schools they didn't ask to attend. The question, said Kennedy, is whether a student can get into the school the student really prefers.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about making school assignments "based on skin color" and not "any other factor."
Attorney Michael Madden, representing the school district, said race is but one factor, that it is relied on only in some instances and then only at the end of a lengthy process.
Madden drew a distinction between the Seattle school program and the subject of the court's 2003 decision, which narrowly approved the University of Michigan law school affirmative action admissions program.
"This is not like being denied admission to a state's flagship university," Madden told Roberts. The Seattle students are "not being denied admission, they are being redistributed."
Parents in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle are challenging school assignment plans that factor in a student's race in an effort to have individual school populations approximate the racial makeup of the entire system. Federal appeals courts have upheld both programs.
Amid the oral arguments, pro-affirmative action demonstrators bearing "Fight For Equality" placards marched on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court in a brisk wind. A parent-teachers group from Chicago and several civil rights groups were among those sponsoring the demonstration.
Demonstrators chanted "Equal education, not segregation" and "We won't go to the back of the bus, integration is a must." Some held signs that read "Stop racism now." Among the crowd were representatives of the National Organization for Women, the NAACP and students from Howard University.
Though outnumbered, there were some in the crowd from the other side.
"Regardless of how well-motivated, allowing the state to engineer racial mixing only creates racial stereotypes and increases racial tension," said Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm. "The court needs to put an end to state-mandated tinkering with race."
The school policies in contention are designed to keep schools from segregating along the same lines as neighborhoods. In Seattle, only high school students are affected. Louisville's plan applies systemwide.
"The plan has prevented the resegregation that inevitably would result from the community's segregated housing patterns and that most likely would produce many schools that might be perceived as 'failing,'" the Seattle school district said in its brief to the high court.
The Bush administration has taken the side of the parents who are suing the school districts, much as it intervened on behalf of college and graduate students who challenged affirmative action policies before the Supreme Court in 2003.
In 2003, the court upheld race-conscious admissions in higher education in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The cases are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 05-908; and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.
__
Associated Press reporter Matthew Daly contributed from Washington
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
posted by Clint at 10:43 PM
1 Comments:
Hey Clint! I guess I'll comment on this subject. You're right it is just that, bullshit.
My point would come right from the very beginning. Why should gov'mint (Bush, Supremes, State, City, etc) have involvement in education in the first place? Why have we allowed the government to teach our kids? Do we really think that teachers have the flexibility to teach in the best manner when under control of a government regime?
All I can say for gov'mint skoolin' is that it's a brainwashing of young people to get them to think according to their prescription of what school should be and what kids will learn.
Among the basics of the best education is critical thinking. This is not acceptable under this system. It goes against what they want taught. Let me tell you that I know this from personal experience. I am a product of the system.
I began learning the minute I left school. I'm still learning. I wasn't taught anything except what is put out by the same system... what gets into the books. And if we "believe" everything that's in those books, I've got some land off the coast of Kansas to sell!
Solution? Privatize. Let the market drive the product. If a school does not perform to the satisfaction of the parent, it will die off. But under a government system, all they do is demand more and more of your money to throw at failure.
Yes, it will cost you. Yes it may be inconvenient (at first). But what are the results? Young adults will be let loose upon the earth with the skills to get the best and highest paying jobs, anywhere, if that is what they want.
But get this... What if the gov'mint had to return every dime back into your pockets that they have stolen from you via taxes to pay for this "education"? Parents would have quite a bit of dough to send their child to the best schools offered under a privatized system. Now when I talk about privatization, I mean just that. NO government involvement of any kind. No "coersion" of any kind. Coersion is violence and is anti-freedom. Government must get out of the business of educating our kids.
We have become a nation that thinks nothing can be accomplished without that institution deciding our every move. What we can and cannot do, how it will be done... and then charge you for every nail driven into the coffin of freedom.
We don't know how to function without this nanny system. And we call ourselves adults. This shows that we don't even think we are equipped for the role of parents, to educate our children. After all, we even have to read books to learn how to raise our kids! We have lost our instinct and no longer rely on our parents' wisdom (whatever the level) and other family members to learn from and help our kids grow up to be walking talking thinking human beings. Equipped with everything they need to survive in this world today.
You Clint are an anomoly, not to mean the only one, but really the "education" that kids are getting in the system is frightening. Nothing will ever change unless there is a revolution within ourselves and we begin taking responsibility for every action. Not relying on government to solve our problems... after all they seem to be the creators of the problems we face. But this wouldn't be so if we did not allow it.
Keep up the great work you do on this blog... You make me proud to be what I am... Your aunt.
deb
Post a Comment
<< Home