Given the importance of this case, I felt the need to devote an entire post to it. Before I continue, I want to make it clear that Justice Kennedy is decidedly NOT one of my favorite Supreme Court Justices, especially since the Kelo decision, although, to be fair, his concurring opinion was easily the most sane and fair of those in the majority. Had he known facts that later came to light, I feel he could have very easily ruled the other way using that same reasoning. Several states reacted in manners consistent with Kennedy's criteria to the benefit of property owners. However, I've already groused about the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ruling, so I won't go into that here. Some say Kennedy's a conservative with libertarian leanings. I say he's a conservative who has the occasional pang of conscience.
Now, on my main point, I find myself echoing his opinion in a case critics decry as undoing the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, decision. Justice Kennedy's stance on this issue was that, while race cannot be THE deciding factor, it can be A deciding factor and that other measures should be taken to prevent resegregation. I also echo Justice Thomas' when he said, "If our history has taught us anything it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories." And although I felt Chief Justice Roberts' plurality opinion was overreaching, I think he was dead-on when he said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Chief Justice Roberts may be a bit of a bastard, but that bastard was right on that point. Discrimination cannot be used to fight discrimination, yet the opinion of the minority in this case was that the ends justify the means. My stance is that the ends are only as noble as the means used to achieve them, and in this case, the means were ignoble and racist. On the most overreaching aspects of the Roberts opinion, no majority was written, merely a plurality. This issue is far from settled, and I think the ensuing debate can be healthy for this nation. However, I somehow doubt it will be, given the abundance of demagogues on both sides of the political spectrum in this nation. Hate begets hate, and Seattle chose to go down that slippery slope.
3 comments:
I have mixed feelings about this ruling. While I dislike seeing racial segregation in schools, I think there may be a better way to achieve a better kind of desegregation... I would base it on income. I think that most of what appears as segregation in our schools today has much more to do with a family's income and the part of town in which they live than it has to do with race. I think that in today's America the most important thing isn't race at all, but it's the widening gap between the haves and have-nots. So... heh... let's make sure that kids from lower socioeconomic groups have every chance to go to school with kids other than just those from lower socioeconomic groups. Talk about a slippery slope! That's probably the kind of idea that would be viewed as discrimination on the basis of income, right? Oh well. I am sure such a process would also get struck down.
I find it sad to think that what it all comes down to isn't necessarily race, but MONEY (or the lack thereof). Damn...
If I remember correctly, income was a suggestion that was part of Kennedy's concurrence. Or, perhaps, it was a pundit who suggested that, and I see merit to that. Regardless, I think hardship exemptions should be made if a school assignment would place undue burden on the parent or guardian, and that was a problem with the Seattle situation. It does no one any good if a child has to sit in a car or bus for an hour or more each way to go to school.
Right on... that "busing" stuff is something I never quite got. Why a kid should go to someplace other than his neighborhood school so kids in rich districts would have exposure to racial diversity? Seems like a well-meant plan, but it's punishing to those who have to be bused.
Post a Comment