I think that the majority in this case, in deciding that race could not be a factor in bussing or whatever the school is doing with the race info to try to have a mixed composition of races in the schools, really misses what some would consider to have been the reason that Brown v. Board of Education was needed in the first place.
I guess that it goes back to what one thinks was the problem during the pre-Brown era from the time of Plessy v. Ferguson in the first place. Either one can think that: 1) the problem was that AA children felt bad b/c they didn't have "others" in class with them OR 2) AA didn't have the resources b/c they didn't have "others" in class with them b/c the "others" were going to get all the resources.
The majority takes a very superficial look at the issue in my opinion. In my opinion, the majority is basically just playing a game. They are using the (somewhat flawed) reasoning that Brown was all about not focusing on race (in that case, to keep kids apart). The point of Brown, in my opinion, was the reasoning that was clearly presented in Brown: don't treat kids differently financially or else they won't be able to be on equal footing with everyone else.
Applying the latter (true) logic behind the Brown decision, the current court would have, in my opinion, come out differently. They would have realized the inherent difficulties and shortcomings in our society and admitted that if those kids get separated into separate schools again, then as in the days before Brown, the AA kids will likely suffer while the "others" will get the resources.
The court fails to admit that the problem is not diversity or lack of diversity. It's about having access to FINANCIAL RESOURCES. When will America stop being so egocentric as to think that AA kids would feel bad if they did not have "others" in their classes and that Mr. Brown was suing so that his kids could experience diversity (which necessarily assumes that the AA kids did not feel that they were valuable or worthy unless they were amongst "others"). That viewpoint is silling and insulting. Plain and simply.
The true problem and the true reason for Brown is this: unless the poor kids go where the rich kids go, nobody will care about whether the poor kids have books or not. In fact, even when they go to the same school, nobody really cares. It's just that the poor kids can then get good books and resources b/c *the school system has no choice - b/c they fully intend to give the books and resources to the rich kids who sit next to the poor kids, so the poor kids get it by default.*
Brown was not about Mr. Luther King's I Have a Dream speech where they just wanted all kids to go to school together b/c the rainbow coalition would look good or seem nice. Brown was about FINANCIAL RESOURCES and the fact that the AA were not and would continue to not get the FINANCIAL RESOURCES unless they went to school where the resources were - with the White kids.
I don't believe that Mr. Brown would have ever brought the lawsuit on his daughter's behalf if she had all of the resources that she needed in her school near her home. Do you?
The Justices are playing a game with this one. I think that Justice Breyer saw it as well in his "irony" comment.
What do you guys think?
SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA2D '91
|