As I understand it, the Brown decision did not order racially mixed schools. It ordered the removal of laws and policies prohibiting racially mixed schools. The principle it upheld was racial nondiscrimination. I originally supported busing because I assumed that busing was a temporary (like, maybe a decade or two) remedy to the despicable enforced racial segregation of the schools at the time, not a permanent practice to achieve some ideal racial mix in every school.

What the Seattle and Louisville school districts mandated was not simply integration but an ideal racial balance in every school dreamed up by some school district bureaucrats. Had Joshua been allowed to go where his mother requested, no one would have been denied the chance to attend a school made up of kids of different races, just not in the racial proportions the school district race police thought best.

The real educational problems faced by black kids today are not lack of white students to sit by but a shortage of good teachers, inadequate choice, lack of order, and a pernicious subculture that derides educational achievement. Despite what would-be social engineers think is best for everyone, most parents of all races, given a choice between racially balanced schools and safe, intellectually demanding schools, would choose the latter. In the wake of this decision, perhaps the education establishment can now focus on trying to provide first class educations to all children instead of wasting resources on rearranging the seating chart on the Titanic we call public education. For the most part, children from upper class and upper middle class homes are sent to private schools because their parents want them to have the best education, not because they don’t want them to sit next to a kid of another race. This is not 1954, or 1964, or even 1974. Dellinger cannot get past the horrific abuses he observed during those years to see what the problems are in 2007.

Justice Thomas suffered the abuses that Dellinger observed from a distance, and he is much more in touch with the reality of what happened then and what is happening now. He said:

Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race....

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (…) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.

Would-be social engineers like Dellinger still believe that coercing people of different races together will result in racial harmony. Is that what we see in the nation’s prisons, where people of different races are forced to live together in close proximity night and day for years on end and where most of the convicts under age forty are most certainly products of busing and integrated schools? Walk into the lunch room of any integrated school in the nation, and I think you will find that many, if not most, kids sit with kids of their own race much of the time.

The perhaps sad fact is that America is not a melting pot. It is a fruit salad. But what’s wrong with that as long as we all have the right to eat in the restaurants of our choice, sleep in the hotels of our choice, travel where we want to, buy houses and rent apartments where we want to, and the Government doesn’t coerce us into doing fruitless and unnecessary things like riding a bus for two, three or four hours a day, wasting our tax dollars and polluting the skies along the way, because a Government bureaucrat (local or federal) is enamored of some idealistic but false social theory?

If you really want to use buses to improve society, segregate the schools along the lines of IQ and educational achievement: separate schools for the Brights, the Normals, and the Dulls. Let the bright kids go to school with other bright kids and give them a curriculum to challenge their innate gifts. This is the most under-served minority in the school system. Somewhere along the way, the same people who dreamed up these ideal racial balances got the idea that the dull kids should be in the same classes as the bright kids. Whatever this does for the dull kids, it certainly doesn’t do the bright kids any good. Lastly, everyone would be better off if we de-thug all the schools. The thugs should have their own school where perhaps they can be fast-tracked to their ultimate destination, the prison system.

"The real educational problems faced by black kids today are not lack of white students to sit by but a shortage of good teachers, inadequate choice, lack of order, and a pernicious subculture that derides educational achievement."

Much is covered in this one sentence! Excellent post.

Good teachers is a universal problem. In most developed countries, waiting tables often pays better. Salaries are only a part of the problem. School systems do not offer professional latitude to teachers; most curriculum are highly systematised and check-list driven. Classroom conduct is overegulated. Of course, the current quality of teachers requires such and other brain-deadening measures. So, where does one begin to revisit the system?

The true pernicious subculture is the one that makes claims such as

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement,

Which demonstrates an ignorance of the data WRT both educational outcomes as well as the consequences of underfunding public education that came about as a result of Brown because those in this "pernicious subculture" were willing to disband public education rather than integrate and who subsequently underfunded the school systems by 15% in the 1960s and additional 15% in the hyperinflation of the 1970s.

Brown DID say that it was impossible to provide equal education as long as there was a lack of integration

Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal

So I'm not even sure where you get your rather fanciful notion that

Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation

I urge you to actually read the decision and understand it before you make such unsupportable claims. The above is from the Syllabus. The below is from the actual ruling - which was UNANIMOUS

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws.
o o o
there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.
o o o
We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Ammendment
o o o
We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.

IOW Brown very much asserts that segregation FOR ANY REASON is harmful and a violation. And Dellinger is completely correct that Roberts' hallucinatory reading of it stands everything on its head.

As for Thomas - well we have long known that Thomas is hell bent on proving that somehow he accomplished what he did WITHOUT Affirmative Action and active protection by the legal system. Because then, and ONLY THEN, does he believe he will be able to overcome the broad perception that he was never the "best man for the job". His conclusions have nothing to do with being closer to history - they have to do with his own sense of inferiority.

As I am not well-versed in the Brown v BoE case, I offered no specific comment on it. Generally, my observations of the results of Affirmative Action were 1) it was absolutely necessary at the time; and 2) as with any corrective entitlement, rescinding all or part of it at later dates was understood to be a challenge. What was missing were relevant benchmarks, and, critically, leadership at all levels. That leadership--one that speak frankly, even incorrectly (as in well-informed and well-intentioned posts)--is not yet apparent (at least not from my distance in Europe).

You have a point that leadership isn't currently present. And similarly you are correct that there never has been a tangible set of benchmarks put forth for when AA would no longer be necessary, though I would argue that MLK's "I have a Dream" speech provides the framework. Some of MLK's dreams have actually come true to a limited extend (one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.) but most of the others have not.

And the issue here is one of those dream elements:

a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Those still receiving unearned privileges steal this notion and convert it to the idea that somehow THEY are being discriminated against when the advantages they accept through "the color of their skin" is held into consideration in comparing to others.

They believe that the benefits that have accrued to them have come SOLEY through the "content of their character" (despite broad evidence to the contrary) and similarly the outcomes that have accrued to minorities and women are similarly driven purely by personal effort. In reality this stands MLKs vision on its head. Instead of making the rough places plain and the crooked straight, it is willingness to ignore how much less rough and crooked their paths are compared to those of their peers.

As for Brown - its not that complex a decision. There is no dissent, nor "limited concurrance" to parse through to understand the actual reference, and the language is purposefully accessible. Read it for yourself - follow the linke.

We all agree that the apartheid education system existing in 1954, and for years afterwards, was appalling and disgraceful and resulted in black children being condemned to third rate educations. And we all agree that the Brown decision rightly struck down legally mandated apartheid in education. Nonetheless, the sweeping claim that Brown (arguably) makes that black kids cannot get an education equal to whites in 2007 unless they are sitting next to white kids is, IMO, patently ridiculous. I suspect that members of other minorities, like immigrant Asian Americans (who often have the additional impediment of first learning English), excel regardless of class composition. What does the “data” say about the educational achievement of Asian American kids? Must they also sit next to kids of European descent in order to excel?

Legal opinions often say a lot of things that are outside of the holding of the case. Thus, first year law students are taught to distinguish the holding, or rule of law, in the case from the “dictum.” As I recall, the segregation of which the plaintiffs complained in Brown was segregation of the schools by law, not de facto segregation arising from the racial composition of neighborhoods. What caused black kids psychological harm was the fact that they were not allowed to sit in the same classrooms as whites by law, the clear implication of the law being that they were inferior beings. By ordinary legal reasoning, the holding of the case would be that de jure segregation is a violation of equal protection, notwithstanding the broad and sweeping statements in the opinion. I suspect that most of the justices read the word “segregation” in the opinion to mean “de jure segregation.” At least one of them, according to Rehnquist years later, initially wanted to affirm the “separate but equal” doctrine in Plessy. Would he have signed onto an opinion that outlawed largely single race schools arising solely by the accident of the racial composition of a particular neighborhood? I doubt it.

It strikes me as extremely insulting to suggest that black kids must be seated next to white kids before they can excel in learning, as if something has to “rub off” the white kids. What is it that has to rub off, degsme?

Lastly, with regard to your dismissive comments about Thomas, can any black person succeed without “Affirmative Action and active protection by the legal system” in your view?

Could we leverage the talents of the best teachers through the use of technology: computers and broadband internet? My hope is that someday we will have technology that will allow education to be tailored to the talents and aptitude of the individual student, and the classroom as we know it will be a thing of the past.

Thanks for the compliment, mon ami.

While limited, I have reviewed a funding proposal for just such an idea. A famous teacher in mathematics in a troubled urban school had been identified by a group of corporate lawyers who were then seeking private funding for live/online delivery of his classes. At my insistence, a number of educational psychologists/specialists were engaged and a pilot programme conducted. The idea failed. The teacher understood why better than others. Personal chemistry cannot be downloaded.

There should be ample findings on this point from internet pornography. Lots of sexual "events" but little personal experience or development (and no pregnancies!). (Although I must confess that I've leanerd alot from only a few forays into that offline world!)

You assume schools are purely about academics. There is a large component of socialization and networking. Furthermore there is the issue of "school reputation" for collegiate admissions.

But even those points ignore the fact that as soon as you allow segregation, there no longer is a general societal interest in keeping ALL schools to a high standard. With segregation you quickly devolve into the schools that have more privileged parents will become schools in which the School District leadership spends more time supporting.

So no, the claim that Brown makes about the impact of segregated education is neither too sweeping nor does it lack logical or historic basis.

And this DOES ALSO apply to asian students when normalized for their socio-economic background (remember most asian immigrants come from the intelligensia and well to do classes and you have to normalize the sample set for this).

I do agree with you that the Scalito, Roberts crowd wants to limit the interpretation of Brown to de jure segregation, but that is NOT what the ruling says, it is NOT what the underlying case was about, nor was it the contemporaneous understanding at the time (which is why most "private clubs" today cannot discriminate even though they are private).

So to suggest that standing Brown on its head and arguing it referred to de jure segregation is not only historically inaccurate, but it is dishonest. Upholding Plessy would be more honest. But then Roberts would go down in history in a manner he does not want to be rememberd.

As for your last two points, for it to be insulting to assert that black kids need access to the same classroom as white kids to get an equal education requires that you presume that society itself is already colorblind. Yet the data shows no such thing. Sure a minority autodidact can and will learn more than a white male intellectual sloth. But that's not the measure. The measure is whether you are setting artificial hurdles in the path of the minorty and thereby giving the white sloth unearned privilege. And the answer to that is clearly YES you are creating unearned privilege.

And while it is possible for anyone to overcome unearned privilege by simply being brillaint, the idea that such brilliance is all it takes to rise to the absolute pinnacle of a profession is most charitably described as naivite. So for Thomas, who while smart and capable is NOT the most brilliant minority legal intellect, to rise to the level of SCOTUS is very clearly something he could not have done on his own. Without Affirmative Action he would have had a succesful career - probably in a minority law firm serving minority clients. But he never would have gotten to the level of being even a candidate for SCOTUS.

Society is simply still too rigged.

Your arguments formed a passionate debate in the America of my youth. For better or worse, however, my own experience in getting children through schools in foreign systems, where we are a tri-lingual minority, would not permit me to sign up to your universalist approach on this matter. Quality, curriculum and balance in linguistic cultures are the only determinants that matter here. At the same time, I appreciate and am troubled, as I said at the outset, that America is still struggling to sort its history and rascism. I have no answers on this. There is a failure. It should be called as such. Then perhaps frank discussions, clear goals and true leadership will restore integrity to public education there.

It is widely perceived here that America's failure in public education and social policy relating to its underclasses are a core cause of its failures in its military missions. I will leave this topic here.

The linkage between problems in military missions and its linkage to failed educaitonal and social policy is an interesting hypothesis. I'll have to think about that before responding in depth. At first glance it resonates, at second glance it doesn't (Vietnam and Korean era was better educated than WWII era as a whole).

the sad reality is that US Education simply isn't being funded for success. The School District I attended paid $26k as a starting salary in 1973 and its highest paid teacher in 1977 was paid $60k. And the SD regularly placed in the top 10 nationwide.

Here in Washington state, 30 years of inflation later (including 6-8 years of double digit inflation), the starting salary for a teacher STATE WIDE is $24k and Max Salary is around $57k. If you reverse inflation adjust those values, WA would have been paying its starting teachers $5,300 with a max teacher salary of $12,800. IOW the STARTING salary of the Chappaqua SD was twice what WA states MAXIMUM is today.

You get what you pay for.

"And this DOES ALSO apply to asian students when normalized for their socio-economic background (remember most asian immigrants come from the intelligensia and well to do classes and you have to normalize the sample set for this)."

I presume you are saying that there is a difference in academic performance between a six year old asian immigrant child born into the "intelligensia" and a six year old asian immigrant child born into the working class in the same school. Why would this be?

What about the asian immigrant child whose parents were upper class in their country of origin, but arrived here penniless? Would that child's academic performance differ from that of the asian immigrant child in the same school whose parents are also affluent here?

How do you explain the differences in academic performance between young children born into the "intelligensia" and those born into the working class?

Acculturized sense of entitlement is a complex issue. Suffice it to say that those who come from more educated backgrounds are able to offer intellectual nurturing at earlier ages and thus predicts for better outcomes. Included in this are factors such as parental involvement in the child's education, the preponderance of reading materials around the house, the aggresiveness of the parents in reading TO the child and in teaching the child to read (this is one of the best predictors of long term academic success), etc.

So immigrant children from upperclass parents who are now penniless will do better than immigrant children from working class parents who are penniless. And since economics plays a factor in the amount of time parents have to be involved with their child's education, yes the affluent intelligensia child will most likely do better than the penniless intelligensia child.

As I recall, Head Start was supposed to help close the gap between the affluent and the poor on the early childhood factors you mentioned: reading materials, reading to the child, and teaching the child to read. I read somewhere that the program was successful in closing that learning gap in the early years, but that it did not significantly change long term outcomes in academic achievement. Is this true, and, if so, why?

Academic achievement is synonymous with an "acculturized sense of entitlement"?

Degs, given that I'm a child of white privilege, I still came from working class parents, and not the "intelligentsia." While I'm not sitting on the SCOTUS of my profession, I have received that profession's most important award, so how do you explain my progress? Shouldn't I be driving a truck somewhere? Certainly my success isn't ALL the result of white privilege, is it?