Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher

Back to the future

America has a history of slavery, segregation and racial discrimination. While conditions have improved considerably, this hateful legacy still has strong psychological repercussions.

Reasonable people, sensitive to the consequences of racism, would assert that it is a major national interest to heal race relations. They would also undoubtedly agree that the best time to begin the process is with the young.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

In a disappointing 5-4 decision, the Court has characterized school integration plans in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., as unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stated that “to the extent the objective is sufficient diversity so that students see fellow students as individuals rather than solely as members of a racial group, using means that treat students solely as members of a racial group is fundamentally at cross-purposes with that end.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined in the plurality opinion. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy submitted a concurring opinion in which he stated that “the plurality opinion is too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race.” He points out that the majority is mistaken to conclude that the Constitution requires “… state and local school authorities [to] accept the status quo of racial isolation in schools.”

The fact is, public schools are now more racially segregated than they were in 1970. In light of this fact, one would think that it is a sufficiently “compelling government interest” to permit school authorities to develop integration plans which are not so “narrowly tailored” that they become impractical.

While Kennedy renounces the plurality assertion that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” his alternative is not very encouraging. School authorities may consider racial diversity, but implementation plans must be restricted to building schools in locations accessible to multiracial students and geographic restructuring of school districts. Assignment plans for individual students would still be unconstitutional.

African Americans should take little comfort in Kennedy’s concurring opinion. It is the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that the establishment of harmonious racial relations in America is not a significantly “compelling government interest.” As a consequence, it is not constitutional to establish remedies to achieve diversity if they impair the privilege of choice in public school assignments for some students.

In his minority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer stated: “The last half-century has witnessed great strides toward racial equality, but we have not yet realized the promise of Brown [v. Board of Education]. To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown. The plurality’s position, I fear, would break that promise. This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret.”

It is now time for African Americans to plan for public education in racial isolation. To continue to look to the promise of Brown as the ideal is to suggest to black students that they have been deprived. That would create a negative spirit of victimization for young black students.

All over the world, students study successfully in ethnic isolation. Black communities must now make plans to do so in America.

“They might as well consider
race in school. They consider it everywhere else, like when you’re driving while black.”