Quote:
Disfavoring a color-blind interpretation of the Constitution, the dissent would give school boards a free hand to make decisions on the basis of race—an approach reminiscent of that advocated by the segregationists in Brown v. Board of Educa-tion, 347 U. S 483 (1954). This approach is just as wrong today as it was a half-century ago. The Constitution and our cases require us to be much more demanding before permitting local school boards to make decisions based on race...
Racial imbalance is not segregation. Although presently observed racial imbalance might resultfrom past de jure segregation, racial imbalance can alsoresult from any number of innocent private decisions, including voluntary housing choices...
Unlike de jure segregation, there is no ultimate remedy for racial imbalance. Individual schools will fall in and out of balance in the natural course, and the appropriate balance itself will shift with a school district’s changing demographics. Thus, racial balancing will have to take place on an indefinite basis—a continuous process with no identifiable culpable party and no discernable end point...
As these programs demonstrate, government uses racial criteria to “bring theraces together,” post, at 29, someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race. The petitioner in the Louisville case received a letter from the school board informing her that her kindergartener would not be allowed to attend the school of petitioner’s choosing because of the child’s race. App. InNo. 05–915, p. 97. Doubtless, hundreds of letters like this went out from both school boards every year these race-based assignment plans were in operation. This type ofexclusion, solely on the basis of race, is precisely the sort of government action that pits the races against one an-other, exacerbates racial tension, and “provoke[s] resent-ment among those who believe that they have beenwronged by the government’s use of race... ”
Finally, the dissent asserts a “democratic element” to the integration interest. It defines the “democratic element” as “an interest in producing an educational environment that reflects the ‘pluralistic society’ in which ourchildren will live.” Post, at 39.15 Environmental reflection, though, is just another way to say racial balancing. And “[p]referring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for itsown sake.” Bakke, 438 U. S. at 307 (opinion of Powell, J.). “This the Constitution forbids.” Ibid.; Grutter, supra, at 329–330; Freeman, 503 U. S. at 494... Simply putting students together underthe same roof does not necessarily mean that the studentswill learn together or even interact... "
Most of the dissent’s criticisms of today’s result can betraced to its rejection of the color-blind Constitution. See post, at 29. The dissent attempts to marginalize the no-tion of a color-blind Constitution by consigning it to meand Members of today’s plurality.19 See ibid.; see also post, at 61. But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep.
Rock on! Indeed, it's refreshing to see so much common sense.
Quote:
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer shook his head. He rolled his eyes. He even grimaced once or twice as he listened to Chief Justice John Roberts read the majority opinion in the school diversity case on Thursday... He punctuated his words by jabbing his right hand into the air. He told the hushed courtroom three times that the majority was wrong.
Waaaaa!