Another Chance for a Colorblind Constitution

Maybe America's next generation of students will get to see a colorblind Constitution after all -- at least through their high school graduation. Three years ago, a bare majority of the Supreme Court of the United States further delayed Dr. Martin Luther King's dream that his children would one day live in a nation where they would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" when five justices ruled colleges and universities could admit students based on their race.

As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of the decision then, the High Court had granted colleges and universities a "25-year license to violate the Constitution," thus teaching America's future leaders the lesson that their race matters. But, on Monday, a new High Court signaled that maybe, just maybe, that same lesson won't be taught to our nation's elementary and high school students. Specifically, the justices agreed to hear two cases next term challenging the practice of some public school districts to use race in deciding whether students can choose to attend the elementary or high school of their choice.

The cases come from Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, where the public school districts allow students (with the assistance of their parents) to choose which schools they want to attend. However, in assigning a school to each student based on his or her preferences, those school districts also considered the student's race if the school of choice already enrolls too many pupils of that same skin color.

Of course, the school districts claim they have a legitimate reason for engaging in this obvious racial discrimination. The school districts argue they need to ensure each one of their elementary and high schools maintains the "proper" racial balance so that their students can reap the reward of educational diversity. Not surprisingly, this was the rationale approved by the bare majority of the Supreme Court three years ago.

In truth, the racial balancing engaged in by the Louisville and Seattle public school districts is anything but permissible under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. While five justices did uphold the University of Michigan's consideration of an applicant's race in admitting each student to law school, the Court said such racial consideration had to be "individualized" on a student-by-student basis to promote the "educational benefits" of "diversity."

Indeed, in the companion University of Michigan case, a larger majority of the High Court struck down the University's undergraduate admissions process that gave a fixed number of "bonus" points toward admission to under-represented minority applicants. Such a rigid preference for students of particular races was unconstitutional racial discrimination that violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the High Court ruled.

Rigidly is exactly how racial preferences have been used by the Louisville and Seattle public school districts. Quite simply, those school districts used race as a disqualifying factor once a specific elementary or high school already had "enough" students that looked the same. This certainly cannot be the holistic "individualized" consideration of race in education the bare majority approved three years ago.

Moreover, this new Court should get back to basics and reconsider what they want to teach our nation's school children about the Constitution. Three years ago, five justices taught students applying for higher education that their race could matter more than their past educational performance or future academic potential. Next year, the newly constituted High Court should teach America's elementary and high school students that the Constitution ensures their race shouldn't matter at all, and that Dr. King's dream is on its way to becoming reality.

Source






Australia: Attack on university media courses

The article below quotes the current head of journalism studies at the University of Queensland as rejecting Windschuttle's critique of such courses. The former head of Journalism at the University of Queensland, Prof. John Henningham, however, would likely support the thrust of Windschuttle's criticisms. An experienced journalist himself, he was so dissatisfied with the university offering that he took early retirement and started his own private J-school. See here

Keith Windschuttle, the controversial author and historian this week appointed to the ABC board, believes graduates from university media courses over the past 20 years have been taught anything but good journalism. In a paper first delivered in 1995 and reprinted in The Weekend Australian today, Windschuttle says journalism is committed to reporting the truth, without favour, to inform the audience - but the media theory taught in universities denies these principles. "The methodologies and values of journalism are undermined, contradicted and frequently regarded as naive by the proponents of media theory," he wrote in 1995. "I haven't changed my views at all," Windschuttle said yesterday, "There are some real ex-journalists teaching but they are swamped by those teaching cultural studies nonsense."

Michael Bromley, professor of journalism at the University of Queensland, said yesterday that Windschuttle's argument was very old and outdated. "In some places around the world they didn't even have the argument because it seemed so pointless," Professor Bromley said. "Journalism is about the social world. It is about people's social experience and social reality and the things they talk about. "Good journalists can pick up on those things and report them fairly and accurately. If life changes and things move on, and people are less interested in politics and more interested in Kylie Minogue, then who are we not to report that - or pull a face and say that should not be featured."

ABC TV reporter Quentin Dempster, who was favourite to take up the role of staff-elected board member before the position was abolished by the Government, said Windschuttle's views on media courses could prompt "a debate worth having". "If Keith could give more specific examples of the journalism which has been debauched in such a way, that would be useful to engage the journalism academics around Australia," Dempster said yesterday. "One of the things that has always concerned me about journalism is the influence of commerciality on journalism and editorial judgment and story selection and things like that. If Keith could be more specific and give us some examples it would be a debate worth having."

Dempster said he was opposed to Windschuttle's appointment. "I've got no problem with Keith Windschuttle or anyone else, at a personal level, being on the ABC board," Dempster said. "What his appointment continues, however, is a pattern of jobs for political and ideological mates that has been followed by both the Labor Party in government and the Liberals in government - and I'm sick and tired of it. "We want to make the ABC better."

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My home page is here

***************************