March 06, 2011

Brown v. Board of Ed. still misunderstood

... this time -- and not surprisingly -- by New Castle County Councilman Jea Street. In a column disagreeing with the recreation of a Wilmington School District, he writes,

Sixth, the re-creation of a Wilmington School District would be deemed unconstitutional and new litigation would be required. Contrary to the Delaware General Assembly's action over the last 16 years and the nostalgic desire to re-create a Wilmington School District, the legal determination made in Brown v. Board is still the law of the land. In that regard, separate but equal is still inherently unequal. Therefore, segregation -- whether imposed by segregationists, the Delaware General Assembly or self-imposed -- is still segregation that is inherently unequal and in violation of the law.

Street must still be basking in the "progressive" desegregation heyday that brought Delaware the most "Draconian [plan] than any ever approved by this [US Supreme] Court." Unfortunately for him (but fortunately for rational, free will-favoring people), courts in the last 30 or so years have looked quite unfavorably on government-imposed, social engineering-based "desegregation" ideas, most especially ones that undercut the aforementioned concept of free will/choice.

Heck, even as far back as 1962, Judge Caleb Wright said, "Discrimination is forbidden, but integration is not compelled." Street therefore is pipe dreaming that a move to a new Wilmington District would be deemed unconstitutional, especially if based (wholly or in part) on the self-imposed choices of its participants/inhabitants.

Moreover, one may wonder if city residents (mainly minority) who favor a return to a district of their own are "racist" according to Street's very own rules. Because, after all, back during the debate over Delaware's Neighborhood Schools bill, he referred to the legislation as "new millennium racism."

There may be good reasons why a renewed Wilmington District shouldn't come into being. But it "being unconstitutional" and a return to "racism" sure ain't part of them. That's just trademark Jea Street bluster.

Posted by Hube at March 6, 2011 10:32 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Too many people think that Brown compelled integration. It did not. It allowed black students to go to their neighborhood schools, not to some distant all-black school. It required that blacks not be segregated, or kept out of certain schools. It didn't require that they attend certain schools. Same with whites.

Posted by: Darren at March 6, 2011 02:24 PM

So long as segregation is not imposed by government action, it is legal under the US Constitution. Indeed, even segregation within a public school district is constitutional, provided it exists due to rational decisions made upon a non-racial basis.

Example -- in a community close to mine, a new subdivision was built within a district that is 75% minority. The neighborhood, however, is 80% white and 100% upper income -- and across a major 8-lane highway from the nearest elementary school. An elementary school was therefore built to serve that neighborhood based upon the number of students. While its demographics are quite different from the rest of the district, the fact that the decision was based upon the influx of new students and traffic/safety concerns,even the local minority activist who sits on the district's board concedes that there is no legal or constitutional violation in the drawing of the school's attendance boundaries.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at March 6, 2011 10:19 PM