. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Friday, June 29, 2007
No, not that Chief Justice

So, as you've probably heard, the U.S. Supreme Court issued yet another completely useless decision on school integration plans. Four justices said they aren't constitutional, four said they are, and one said "Well, this one isn't, but there's a line where they are constitutional, but I won't really say where that line is, so I guess school boards will just have to keep guessing." Thanks! That's helpful. It's good to have a Supreme Court which interprets the law for us.

What does the Daily Planet have to say about it, in relation to BUSD? Well, first they're going to talk about that suit by the Pacific Legal Foundation a few time units ago, insisting that the school district absolutely won the suit without mentioning that one of its programs was, indeed, potentially unconstitutional and the claim against it was allowed to go to trial. (information here if you're interested)

We also have this gem:
"I don't think the decision will jeopardize what Berkeley Unified has tried to do so far," said Goodwin Liu, Professor at UC Berkeley's School of Law (Boalt Hall).

"The controlling opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts leaves room for the type of approach Berkeley Unified is trying. It leaves open several avenues for race-conscious measures to achieve integration, including strategic-attendance zoning as well as magnet schools and special programs. The upshot is that the court has sent school districts literally back to the drawing board to devise creative assignment plans to integrate our public schools."

Liu added that it was remarkable that the Chief Justice of the United States cited the historic decision in Brown vs. Board of Education—which prohibits segregation in public schools—to defeat, not defend, school integration.
The controlling opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts apparently both allows some and prohibits all integration plans. It almost seems like an editor should've caught a bit of tension there. These folks seem to think that the controlling opinion came from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, as does their quote of the same press release. If only the Planet had kept up the error and quoted the whole next paragraph:
"It is significant that a majority of the Court—Chief Justice Roberts and the four dissenting Justices—rejected Chief Justice Roberts's attempt to read Brown v. Board of Education as a categorical rule of colorblindness. . . . It is remarkable that the Chief Justice of the United States would cite Brown to defeat not defend school integration, and five Justices, including the Chief Justice, rejected this view as deeply ahistorical."
But... but... I thought we need newspapers to gather news! They're so much better at it than mere blogs!

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 6/29/2007 03:30:00 PM #
Comments (5)
. . .
Comments:
I don't even know what the hell you're blabbering about. Kennedy's opinion IS the controlling one. It IS at a tension with itself.

We cite to the press release sent by Prof. Liu directly, not via the Daily Planet. The DP is misstating both the press release and the rule regarding whose opinion controls.
 
Yeah, I thought it was clear that I was ragging on the Planet for having incompetent staff. I'll make a slight fix that might help.
 
Sorry about the misread, it just wasn't clear.
 
What on earth is "strategic-attendance zoning"? (And why is that hyphen there?)
 
I think the hyphen is grammatically correct, though I wouldn't stake anything on it. Strategic-attendance zoning, I believe, is when they draw the boundaries for who goes to which school in a "strategic" way to get the right racial balance demanded by their pagan diversity gods.
 
Post a Comment


. . .