The New York Times has a fascinating, long article today about a study conducted by Havard’s Civil Rights Project (an organization that appears never to have seen a busing plan it dislikes).
The study claims to find that schools are resegregating, and, after bows to certain dramatic demographic changes and the uncomfortable possibility of at least some personal choice, it blames the dropping of court-supervised desegregation, i.e., busing, as the main culprit.
I’m in a rush to leave Philadelphia at the moment (will pass on opportunity to repeat W.C. Fields famous line here), and so don’t have the time right now that this article deserves. But a coupla points before I hit the road:
Go to the right margin and click on the graph that accompanies the article. I may well be graphically impaired, but this one is harder than most to decipher. But at least it is pretty clear on one point that directly contradicts the text and thrust of the article: the “percentage of students who are white in schools attended by the average … black student” is exactly the same as it was in 1970. Go figure.
More interesting to me is that this alleged “resegregation” is now discussed in terms of the buzzword “diversity,” as in the graph heading:
The Faltering of School Integration
Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education ruled segregated schools unconstitutional, a report shows school diversity has been falling.
The point, of the graph and the story, thus seems to be not only that “resegregation” is bad but that it’s unconsitutional. Suffice it say here, or at least now, as I’ve said before, is that one of the fundamental and still unanswered questions about Brown is whether it required “desegregation” or “integration.” That is, are schools where majorities (large majorities? enormous majorities? even slight majorities?) of students are of one race illegal and in need of remedies, such as busing?
I have argued earlier (such as here) that upon close inspection, or even not so close inspection, the assumptions underlying the “diversity” rationale for racial preferences are reminiscent of the old arguments for busing to achieve racial balance. This article confirms it.
Meanwhile, although I don’t have time to discuss it now, in this regard you should also look at Richard Cohen’s column in the Washington Post this morning. It begins:
In its Jan. 27 cover story on affirmative action, Newsweek tells us that less than “7 percent of Harvard’s current freshman class is black, compared with 12.9 percent of the overall population.” The implication is clear: This is a low, unacceptable figure that can be remedied only by the application of affirmative action. Maybe. But there is one figure Newsweek does not provide: What should the black percentage be?
Gotta go. More (much) later….
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…
One-Sided Reporting on Segregation
Apparently, the Washington Post holds this school resegregation study, by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, in high regard. It doesn’t bother entertaining opposing views. Besides quoting the study and the CRP director extensively, it consults two NAACP…