Landmark Supreme Court decision: K-12 & race

conyat · June 30, 2007, 2:49pm

Please don’t tell these kinds of lies. It’s beneath you and it fools no one.

During the civil rights era, Falwell was preaching on his Old Time Gospel Hour that it was really “civil wrongs” not “civil rights”; that Brown was wrongly decided because God meant for the races to be separate; and for African Americans, descendents of Ham, to be “servants of servants.” Falwell was also extremely critical of Dr. King.

Early opponents of abortion report unsucessfully trying to interest Southern Baptists in their fight, and that Falwell, etal, joined them only when they became outraged over Falwell’s school and Bob Jones U. losing their tax exemption over refusing to admit black students. (Prior to the tax exemption issue, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention issued a statement IN FAVOR OF Roe v. Wade).

You can look all this up. It’s very well documented, and I’ve posted links elsewhere on the board.

It’s one thing for you to try a little exaggeration on the uniformed, like pretending that the Republicans were responsible for the Civil Rights legislation proposed by JOHN KENNEDY.

It’s another to out and out lie by calling truthful statements about Falwell a “mischaracterization” simply because you wish to believe (or trick others into believing) that his history was something other than what it was.

It was mostly SOUTHERN. And it just happened that the south had more Democratic politicians than Republican ones.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was proposed by Democrats, passed by Democrats (with a handful of Republican votes), and the Democratic party lost the South over it, while the Republicans gained it. To this day, most of the hostility to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 comes from Republicans.

mini · June 30, 2007, 3:01pm

Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1971:

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and
WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and
WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother

Resolution On Abortion And Sanctity Of Human Life, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1974:

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a high view of the sanctity of human life, and
WHEREAS, The messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis in 1971 adopted overwhelmingly a resolution on abortion, and
WHEREAS, That resolution reflected a middle ground between the extreme of abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion as murder, and
WHEREAS, That resolution dealt responsibly from a Christian perspective with complexities of abortion problems in contemporary society;
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that we reaffirm the resolution on the subject adopted by the messengers to the St. Louis Southern Baptist Convention meeting in 1971, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we continue to seek God’s guidance through prayer and study in order to bring about solutions to continuing abortion problems in our society.

Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1976:

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life, and
WHEREAS, Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people, and
WHEREAS, Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including the problems of abortion, and
WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons want-only destroys fetal life, dulls our society’s moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life, and
WHEREAS, Every decision for an abortion, for whatever reason must necessarily involve the decision to terminate the life of an innocent human being.
Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we call on Southern Baptists and all citizens of the nation to work to change those attitudes and conditions which encourage many people to turn to abortion as a means of birth control, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that in the best interest of our society, we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion, as contrary to the biblical view, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.

Resolution On Abortion, adopted by the SBC convention, June 1977:

RESOLVED that this Convention reaffirm the strong stand against abortion adopted by the 1976 Convention, and, in view of some confusion in interpreting part of this resolution we confirm our strong opposition to abortion on demand and all governmental policies and actions which permit this.
The 1976 resolution on abortion is as follows:
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life, and
WHEREAS, Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people, and
WHEREAS, Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including the problems of abortion, and
WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons wantonly destroys fetal life, dulls our society’s moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life.
Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June, 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we call on Southern Baptists and all citizens of the nation to work to change those attitudes and conditions which encourage many people to turn to abortion as a means of birth control, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that in the best interest of our society, we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion, as contrary to the biblical view, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.)

Resolution On Abortion, adopted by the SBC convention, June 1978:

WHEREAS, Abortion is a matter of continuing moral concern to the American people, and
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention in annual session in 1977 spoke clearly and forthrightly to this issue,
Be it therefore RESOLVED, that we the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta in June 1978, reaffirm the resolution passed by the 1977 Kansas City Southern Baptist Convention.

Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1979:

WHEREAS, Abortion is a matter of serious concern to the American people in general and to Christians in particular, and
WHEREAS, Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention have spoken clearly to this issue in 1976 as follow:
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life, and
WHEREAS, Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people, and
WHEREAS, Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including the problems of abortion, and
WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons wantonly destroys fetal life, dulls our society’s moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life, and
Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June, 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we call on Southern Baptists and all citizens of the nation to work to change those attitudes and conditions which encourage many people to turn to abortion as a means of birth control, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that in the best interest of our society, we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion, as contrary to the biblical view, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.
WHEREAS, This resolution was reaffirmed in 1978.
Therefore be it RESOLVED, that we affirm the positions taken by these Conventions, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we urge all Southern Baptists to pray earnestly and work faithfully in dealing with this issue.

higherlead · June 30, 2007, 3:22pm

Boy mini you sure know how to take a few words and distort them. The core of the Brown decision was that assigning people to schools based on the color of their skin was unconstitutional and it overturned Plessey and established constitutional law.

If the core of the rulling were that separate is inherently unequal then they would have ruled that Red Sox fans have to sit down with Yankee fans for lunch everyday and the local Quaker Meeting House has to invite the Baptist choir to every meeting.

conyat · June 30, 2007, 3:29pm

The watershed moment for the religious right was Bob Jones U. losing it’s tax exemption over its racist policies. Before that, Jerry Falwell was arguing abou Dr. King that ministers should stay OUT of politics. (This was in addition to Falwell’s insistence that Dr. King was a communist agitator and that his claims to non-violence were false).

conyat · June 30, 2007, 3:30pm

Because all of these are government entities…*rolls eyes

Have you even READ the Brown decision?

Or did you just take Falwell’s word for it being ungodly?

mini · June 30, 2007, 3:48pm

“If the core of the rulling were that separate is inherently unequal…”

I can see you’ve actually read the decision…

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you have not.

As read from the bench by Chief Justice Warren:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

"In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: “. . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [■■■■■■] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

"Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

<a href=“http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html[/url]”>http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html</a>

I think it is reasonable to argue that it was wrong (i.e. “separate but equal” does have a place), or no longer applies, or that there are better remedies, or that there isn’t a problem, and can be argued (unreasonably) that there never was a problem to be remedied. But what they said and wrote, unanimously, is not at issue.

higherlead · June 30, 2007, 4:03pm

conyat - yes you are right JFK introduced the 1964 Civil Rights bill but couldn’t move it through the congress and neither could Johnson until Dirksen mustered the necessary Republican votes. And yes it was Southern Democrats who filibustered the bill.

Of course that 1964 Civil Rifgts bill wouldn’t have been the landmark legislation it was if the guy who introduced it hadn’t joined with his democratic colleagues for purely political reasons to gut the teeth out of the 1957 Civil Rights Bill with crippling amendments and then pass it. It was a crass political move to endear himself to all those powerful Sothern democrats. Not exactly a profile in courage and to my mind typical of the way many northern democrats have always treated matters of race which is to say as a strictly political calculation.

higherlead · June 30, 2007, 4:08pm

mini - I don’t follow the stands of given christian sects on abortion. While I hear a gradual change in tone in those SBC resolutions I don’t see a fundamental shift in position. What’s your point?

conyat · June 30, 2007, 4:10pm

higherlead, not much to say about Falwell’s pro-segregation preaching, I notice.

Or the fact that Southern Baptists were actually CALLING for legalized abortion PRIOR to Roe. v. Wade. And that the head of their convention PRAISED the decision.

The religious right only joined with Catholics in being anti-abortion after Falwell’s school and Bob Jones U. were forced to choose between admitting black students or losing their tax exemption.

The facts 100% support everything I said about Falwell, which was that he become politicized in response to the Civil “Wrongs” act of 1964, as he put it.

higherlead · June 30, 2007, 4:15pm

BTW the democrats did not lose the South over the Civil Rights act of 1964 and certainly not overnight. They lost it over a dozen social, economic, and foreign policy issues.

higherlead · June 30, 2007, 9:10pm

So mini then I guess you are telling me that the Brown decision means that all those schools up in rural Vermont and Northern Wisconsin were unconstitutional in 1954 and probably still are today because they are all white? And it wasn’t the assigning of children to schools on the basis of the color of their skin but the fact that the population happened to be racially homogenous that the court found fault with?

Come on we both know better than that. Court ordered segregation and busing made sense in the wake of the breakup of Jim Crow and may even make sense in a few cases today but at some point it becomes impractical if your goal is to put every minority student in a majority white school. The population of the US isn’t distributed that way.

We have a large number of nearly entirely Black schools in the District of Columbia and Prince Georges County and smaller numbers of such schools in the four abutting counties, Alexandria, Falls Church, and a couple of other independent jurisdiction. It is the core of a huge metropolis and this part alone is somewhere around 1500 square miles. It can take you an hour or two to drive across just this part of the metro area during morning rush. If my goal were to be to put every URM in a majority white school or one that represents the overall demographics of America I couldn’t do it drawing from this geographic area. In fact I couldn’t do it if I extended it to the 15 counties in three states and DC that constitute the entire Washington Metro area.

Now I don’t bemoan that fact, but I do have to accept it as a practical constraint. In a perfect world there might be more Black lumberjacks in Maine and more White Bodega owners in LA but people aren’t going to move where I want them just so the local schools can fit somebody’s idea of the correct racial mix. Instead they are going to live where their jobs are, where their friends and family are, where they like the weather, or where they can afford.

When I sent my kid off to the local elementary school 18 years ago it perfectly mirrored the county’s public school population and was 60% white. Today I still live down the street from that school and it still fairly closely reflects the county’s school age population though not perfectly. Now it is 35% white, 30% hispanic, 23% black and the rest asian. Property values have gone up in the intervening years and it is still a pretty good elementary school. But the point is populations move and demographics shift and you might as well order the tide to stop as try to engineer it through racially assigning children to schools.

It is 2007. We have done about as much as we can do to achieve racial balance in the schools through racial assignment of students. Nobody wants a two hour bus ride just so they can see a perfect array of skin tones, one that fits the current racial composition of america.

To get any farther we are going to have to use other tools. Maybe a financial incentive for every white girl to have more white babies if you really want every person of color in a majority white school. Short of that there might not be enough white kids to go around in your part of the country. Of course maybe internal passports would work. We can move white families from rural areas to urban ones. Of course we will have to keep moving them around to wherever the illegal aliens are settling this week to keep things in balance.

epiphany · June 30, 2007, 9:55pm

There are a few upscale economically segregated (and de facto racially segregated) public school districts in my region, and these combined do not constitute a privileged majority of public school students. In several states in the Union, there is in fact no privileged majority ethnicity in the school population as a whole, let alone in the public school population. Rather, ethnic ‘minorities’ (often Latino, rather than black) comprise the largest school population in many states. So, as others have pointed out, Where do they go to ‘get privileged’ or ‘provide balance’? The privileged areas are clustered, not dispersed. They are clustered where the highly educated live, such as near Universities, where the commerce is upscale, the housing pricey, the job opportunities for those with upper-level skills & sometimes connections/networking. It takes more than court orders to eliminate these powerful class lines. Typically, one finds many low-economic-class workers in such environments, but living far away from those environments.

The majority whites & near-majority Asians (in some cases) attend public schools where the learning expectations are significantly beyond the incoming level of a student not from such an environment. Remediation is not in the game plan at these schools. Resources are there to enrich, not to accommodate, & those parents will never sit by idly to watch the latter replace the former. It may have been Princedog who alluded to the parent power differential between the classes as a significant factor in the quality of the education. Of course [ pat, pat – was that my shoulder?] this observation would tend to reinforce a point I’ve only made maybe 50 times on CC: that a more rapid way to increase student achievement is to INCREASE THE EDUCATION LEVEL OF THE PARENTS. (Perhaps if I shout, it will be heard by policy makers.)

Where ‘racial majority’ families cannot find or afford housing in such clusters, they choose pricey privates: those would be the secular privates, first of all, the well-funded parochials second of all. Those minorities who choose to sacrifice even more than they already do, often seek parochial educations also. It’s just that they end up at the lower-funded parochials with student bodies whose preparation is decidedly less than the top level parochials. (Even where parochial budgets are essentially “even” across schools in a diocese, it is the parents that make up for any gaps – just as is true at publics. No income = big gaps.)

Thirdly, the ‘majority’ go to homeschool alternatives.

Outside of the extreme of the rich publics, the typical public site school in my State has extremely few or no Caucasian faces. The template student body consists of – in this order – Latinos, African Americans, and Southeast Asians or Pacific Islanders.

Just a reality check.

LakeWashington · July 2, 2007, 12:13pm

Let me throw in my support of Conyat’s facts as he has described them regarding Jerry Falwell. And let me add that while largely disagreeing with Falwell’s contemporary conservative politics, I admired him for his apology for his past support of Jim Crow. A mea culpa he offered years ago. Too bad Justice Roberts did not demonstrate the same candor when discussing precedents during the confirmation process.

Landmark Supreme Court decision: K-12 & race

CONNECT WITH US