Supreme court narrowly rules against affirmative action

[ecoli]

... using the same principles set up during the civil rights movement that prevented forced segregation of america's schools.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6250414.stm

 

The idea is that no school should have quotas based on race requirements, which should be seen as unconstitutional. I think its a step in the right direction. We should be focusing on the social and economic factors that caused the "natural" segregation of schools, and let the problem sort itself out. Otherwise, you have a racist system.

 

It was a close one, but the supreme court made the right decision, IMO.

 

It sucks for the black students who don't have access to a good education, because of the neighborhood they're growing up in. But the solution isn't to ship these kids (with taxpayer funds) across the state to overcrowd the 'good' schools. That doesn't solve the problem either, because what about the kids who are 'left behind'? That's not fair for them either.

[theCPE]

I've always felt that one institution of racism doesn't correct a previous institution of racism.

[Sisyphus]

I agree it's probably time to dismantle the affirmative action system. It's a solution which is becoming almost as bad as the problem it's trying to solve, and it's not solving that problem.

[CPL.Luke]

there is also something to be aid about those people moving to areas that have access to better schooling rather than complaining that somebody else should help them.

[Sisyphus]

there is also something to be aid about those people moving to areas that have access to better schooling rather than complaining that somebody else should help them.

 

1) They can't afford to, for the most part.

2) Everyone moving out of a poor neighborhood is not terribly practical, no?

[CPL.Luke]

no, but lots of people leave poor neighborhoods. there's low income housing everywhere, and personally I don't believe in society is the root cause of everything, and while you may struggle with low wage jobs, there are always ways to get out of such predicaments, its the belief that you can't get out that keeps peopledown more than anything.

[ParanoiA]

I think they made the right ruling. I would never advocate racism, no matter how nicely it's worded or intended.

 

But in reference to the poverty district problem, I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, I like the idea of successful districts, good neighborhoods fostering strong business and growth, being able to reap the benefits of their success and put more money into their own schools.

 

On the other hand, we all know how it takes money to make money and once you get momentum going for you it's much easier to stay afloat. This puts poor communities and districts in the red, because they don't have any money to make money with. It's much harder to compete with the richer side of town as they've already got so much going.

 

I don't know if this qualifies everywhere as I'm not sure how most states set up their tax structure for their schools, but in Missouri and Oklahoma, I know they use property taxes to fund the schools. Nicer areas = higher taxes.

[Pangloss]

This is not a decision pertaining affirmative action. This is a decision pertaining to school segregation. There is a difference.

 

Regarding economic criteria as an alternative, ABC News did a story yesterday about a school system in California that has had greater success in integrating its population by using economic guidelines rather than ratial ones.

 

I've always felt that one institution of racism doesn't correct a previous institution of racism.

 

Chief Justice Roberts said almost exactly the same thing in the majority opinion. I don't have the quote right in front of me, but I believe it was "the best way to end racial segregation is to end racial segregation".

 

I had actually planned to start a thread on this myself, entitled "US Schools No Longer Allowed to Segregate Based on Race", just because it would have sounded like a headline out of the 1960s.