Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

The Re-Segregation of U.S. Schools?

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court made the re-segregation of U.S. public schools a strong possibility and, maddeningly, did so in language drawn from the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case which outlawed school segregation and overturned the earlier Plessy v. Ferguson principle of “separate but equal” treatment of the races–a principle that had created a de facto pattern of racial apartheid in much of the U.S., especially the South and Southwest.

At issue were two widely separated public school districts, Seattle, Washington (Parents Involved v. Seattle School District) and Louisville, Kentucky (Meredith v. Jefferson County School Board), and their voluntary plans to promote racial and ethnic diversity in their schools by pupil assignment.  In Seattle school district 1, there had never been a history of legal racial discrimination.  The “white majority” vs. “black majority” schools were caused by neighborhood housing patterns.  The majority of Seattle whites still live north of downtown and the majority of Seattle blacks still live south of downtown.  The Seattle plan allowed parents and students to choose different public schools, but if too many of one race picked a particular school, a “tie-breaker” factor could be used to deny a first choice in order to promote racial diversity in the classroom. In a recent year, 210 white students and 90 non-white students were denied their first choice of schools under the plan.

The Louisville case was somewhat different. Jefferson County School District is coterminous with Metro-Louisville (combined city-county government).   Before 1975 (yes, it took THAT long for Brown to be enforced in much of the country!), the schools were officially segregated by race.  From 1975 to 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court compelled Louisville to integrate its schools and used bussing out of neighborhoods to do so (to the anger of many parents).  In 2001, when the legal requirement was lifted, Louisville created its current voluntary plan in order to keep from re-segregation based on housing patterns.  (There are now some slightly integrated neighborhoods in Jefferson County, KY, but the vast majority of people living in the West End are African-American and even more of those living in the East End are white. My family lives voluntarily in a downtown neighborhood in which whites are a minority of about 35%.)

The Louisville plan, which has widespread parental and student support, gives students a choice of schools, with first priority going to schools in their neighborhoods.  “Magnet” schools and other special programs have no geographic area. Schools are assigned based on numerous factors (including grades to get into Magnet programs or schools with honors programs).  But, race is one factor in assignment in order to prevent resegregation.  Schools seek to keep black enrollment from falling below 15% or getting above 50% of student population, so that the public schools approximate the 34% of the population that African-Americans make up in Jefferson County.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down both plans.  Four justices, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts, gave a plurality opinion claiming that race could never be used constitutionally in school assignment, even to promote racial diversity.  Four justices, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens, in a dissenting opinion of unusual length written by Justice Breyer, upheld the legality of the case, claiming (rightly, in my view) that one could not ignore the history of segregation in this country such decisions, and that “decisions based on race” to promote diversity and equality are very different from “decisions based on race” designed to promote racial supremacy!(DUH!!) Justice Kennedy wrote a narrow concurring opinion which gave the 5-4 majority the power to strike down these plans, but Justice Kennedy dissented from the Roberts’ plurality’s view that race could NEVER be a deciding factor. This leaves school boards across the nation scrambling to find ways to promote racial diversity that would meet Kennedy’s tests. (His suggestions, such as changing the geographical boundaries of school districts, have been tried and failed.)

We here in Louisville now live in fear that our children will go to re-segregated schools.  One way around this, at least for the forseeable future, would be if class were substituted for race in school assignment.  After all, the average income in Louisville’s black majority neighborhoods is MUCH smaller than the average income in its white majority neighborhoods, especially in the affluent East End.  Affirmative Action by class would appear to pass even the new conservative majority’s constitutional interpretation and would create the needed diversity in schools.

Whatever we do, however many headaches it causes our local school boards, we cannot simply accept re-segregation.

For much of U.S. history, the judicial branch of our government, led by the Supreme Court, was the most regressive branch, defending slavery, defending the rich over the poor, defending corporations against workers, etc.  Only from the mid-1930s to the late 197os was the Court a friend to the poor. Only from 1954 until 1980 was the Court strongly on the side of racial justice–something which began to be eroded with the judicial appointments of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes.  Now, the Court is clearly, if narrowly, again against the creation of a just society.  We must be creative in our response, but we must not let this wrongheaded decision stand in our way.

Jim Wallis likes to say that racism is “America’s Original Sin,” since the nation was founded on the attempted genocide of one racial group and the chattel slavery of another. (Later, injustices to Asians and other ethnic minorities were added, too.) That original sin reared its ugly, and institutional, head again this week. But sin does not have the last word unless we let it.


July 1, 2007 - Posted by | race, U.S. politics


  1. […] L. Westmoreland-White comments: For much of U.S. history, the judicial branch of our government, led by the Supreme Court, was the […]

    Pingback by Supreme Court Decision Part II « The Blog and the Bullet | July 1, 2007

  2. Michael,

    I do appreciate your commentary on this issue. When I first heard of the decision, I had no real disagreements with the substance of what was being said. However, after reading your post and looking deeper into the issue, it very much is another example of a setback which will take years to overcome in the fight for total equality and racial reconciliation. We have much to learn from one another, and this judgment serves to impede, rather than aid, that learning.

    Comment by Dustin | July 2, 2007

  3. A nice commentary, and I appreciate getting the inside-Louisville perspective. Here in San Francisco, we have been under court order to desegregate and under separate court order not to use race in school assignment (though the orders have been lifted now I believe.) OUr assignment system is similar to Louisville’s but with no neighborhood preference and with a sort-of-proxy index for race based on income level and such. This was in place for 8 years or so. Seems like the kind of thing cities might try in light of this ruling.

    Guess what? The plan has re-segregated schools. It is also the subject of bitter controversy, with one side arguing for real-estate based schools. (so-called neighborhood schools)

    Original sin is a good way to put it.

    I like your blog and your perspective. I’ll come back.

    Comment by SF Mom of One | July 2, 2007

  4. This is really a tragic decision that will likely wreak havock on America’s school districts and will as you say lead to the resegregation of the schools. As we all learned from our church growth studies — “birds of a feather flock together.” But when birds of a feather flock together the birds begin to let stereotypes rule!

    Comment by Bob Cornwall | July 2, 2007

  5. My church is in one of the few truly integrated parts of Louisville. If you go even two blocks west of it, you’re in an almost exclusively black area. If you go three or four blocks east of it, you’re in an almost exclusively white area. So, essentially we are on a very small island in an almost entirely segregated city.

    This Supreme Court decision angers me, and saddens me. I truly believe that many of the Justices who struck down Louisville’s plan did so because they don’t believe in any sort of discrimination on the basis of race. And I can applaud that. However, even though we wish for a raceless, color-blind society, we don’t live in one. Discrimination, and especially discrimination on the basis of race, is alive and well in America, and in Louisville. Ignoring that, and basing policy and law on an assumption of fundamental equality at a time in which things are decidedly not fundamentally equal will only make the very real discrimination in our culture and our community that much worse.

    In the face of this, my wife and I are ever more committed to working for authentic integration in Louisville. We’ve been talking for a long time about buying a house near our church, just on the “other” side of the color line. The stakes are even higher now, and when we get a little bit more money saved up, unless we decide to leave Louisville, I think we’re going to have to do it. Until we are no longer content to live in a segregated city, there will always be a dividing line through the middle of Louisville.

    Comment by Sandalstraps | July 2, 2007

  6. Chris, my house and church are in another such small island of integration in Louisville. And with the city’s closing of the Clarksdale Housing Project, this may change. We have discussed the possibility that the city’s plans may mean that we are one of the few churches that move in order to avoid white flight and remain with the poor!

    Bob, I have never taken a church growth class and I have repeatedly condemned the Church Growth Movement which started at your alma mater a heresy, at least insofar as its “homogeneity principle” turns a sociological observation into a (heretical) theological principle. Peter Wagner infamously remarked that “men[sic] prefer to be converted without having to change any of the social categories they knew before.” I always replied that this only means that “men” prefer NOT to be converted! If becoming Christian doesn’t break down dividing walls of hostility, if our churches can only grow by being based on homogeneous groups (same race, ethnicity, class, education level, etc.), then the gospel is a lie. I would rather be in a small church than for it to grow based on principles contrary to the gospel.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | July 2, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: