Most of the posts criticizing the article don't seem to address that point. Clearly, with government segregation, there was a harm to people of color because of the inherently unequal education.

What is the harm that comes from a school board voluntarily integrating schools? Are white children given inherently inferior educations because the schools are integrated? On principle, the integration would make the schools in the district more equal, so all students should have an equal chance to attend a good school. Is a school district required to keep it's schools segregated?

I agree with the author that the abstracted reading on Brown ignores the fact that forced segregation violates the 14th amendment and harms entire groups of people, while local integration doesn't deny equal protection or harm a group of people.

Any thoughts on this from those who agree with the ruling?

As one who "supports the decision," I'll try to answer (for at least myself):

There is a constitutional distinction between de jure segregation (segregation enforced by law) on one hand and de facto segregation on the other. The former is proscribed by the 14th Amendment ("no State shall...deny...the equal protection of the laws"), while the latter, which results from factors which are not imposed by law, is not. Desegregation (ending de jure segregation) IS the business of government. Integration (under the guise of "encouraging diversity" or some other euphamism) IS NOT. The Constitution does not compel integration--it can't. It can (and should) promote desegregation. As Justice Harlan wrote (and argued): "The Constitution is color-blind." It should, and, indeed, must be.

The latest decision, if I understand it correctly (and I have not read the opinion(s)), is an effort to reach the "color-blind Constitution" goal enunciated by Justice Harlan and others, including the authors and of and advocates in Brown. That must be the goal of American law. Continuing to focus on race (or sex, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.) in making sociolegal decisions demeans everyone in society. It is as wrong as it is unnecessary. You cannot seek to end discrimination by perpetuating it--and you should not. And even a "benign" use of race for what is perceived as a laudable goal (integration or "diversity") perpetuates discrimination-on the basis of race.

That the Supreme Court has finally taken a step toward recognizing that is a long-overdue sstep in the right direction. The sooner society recognizes this, the sooner we'll reach the "color-blind" society envisioned by Dr. King and others.

Are you a crackhead ? MLK did not beleive in a color- blind society in ANY way. Stop commiting politcal necrophilla on MLK.

I agree with you to an extent. As far as I know (and I'm not a constitutional scholar), you're right that the constitution requires the elimination of de jure segregation. Also, you're right that the constitution does not require integration.

I guess where the difference comes is in the question of whether the constitution prohibits integration. Sure, you don't have to address de facto segregation, but if the district wants to do so, is that illegal? It seems to me that such a practice would not only have to be race-based, but would also have to have inherently negative consequences for people based on the race distinction. As per my original post, I'm not sure that's the case here.

On your point that "Continuing to focus on race (or sex, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.) in making sociolegal decisions demeans everyone in society." This is an interesting point, but it seems to me to be too abstract to really work. I would again tie this in with harm. Which people are being treated unfairly? One of the reasons that segregation was inherently demeaning (even if the "colored" bathroom was very clean) was that it assumed that people of color were inferior. Integration does not make that assumption. Instead, all individuals in a district attend schools that are relatively equally distributed. If whites are not demeaned and people of color are not demeaned, then how are we "all" demeaned?

If I can be convinced that either whites or people of color are inherently harmed through this voluntary integration program, I'll change my mind.

To scottyhope: I doubt I'll ever be able to convince you, but I'm going to try.

Whenever you draw classifications, you differentiate. To the extent that private people differentiate, there is no harm or foul.

The problem arises when government does the classifying. Government, by its nature, must treat all alike. It doesn't have the right to deny "equal protection of the laws" (to demean or elevate anyone). When government draws classifications, it inherently is not treating everyone "alike." And when it does so based on "race, color or previous condition of servitude" (the constitutional underpinning of Brown and most civil rights legislation), it is discriminating, even if the goal is to "redress" previous discrimination.

In addition, the type of classification involved here elevates group membership over the individual. Groups do not have "rights" or "obligations" under the Constitution--individuals do. Thus, by seeking to classify based on groupings, government compounds the error. It is (or was) one thing to try to "compensate" for past de jure discrimination on the part of government by dealing primarily with the group rather than the individuals, but today, after 50+ years, that basis has lost all viability. The individuals who made up the group which directly suffered from de jure discrimination are long beyond any redress (they are no longer in the schools, which are now desegregated). There is thus no legal basis for continuing to redress a wrong that is no longer present.

We can, I suppose, argue whether "diversity" or "integration" is a goal which the law or government should pursue. I'm not totally convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs (monetary, human or otherwise). I'm certain, however, that diversity and integration cannot be pursued as a part of a legal strategy by government, since the Constitution proscribes only State-sponsored discrimination, and does not command either integration or diversity.

By the way, it is interesting to note that the original drafts of the 14th Amendment did try to address private discrimination. Those provisions were stricken by Congress in favor of the current language. I'm thus reasonably confident that my interpretation of the Amendment is what the framers thereof intended (not that that necessarily means a lot to some people, but it does to me).