C-Ville, one of Charlottesville’s two weekly free newspapers last seen here paying homage to local worthy Dahlia Lithwick, SLATE’s legal analyst known more for the sizzle than the steak of her columns, is at it again. In an article lamenting the Supreme’s recent decision to address racial school assignments (discussed here), C-Ville turns to Ms. Lithwick, and only to Ms. Lithwick, for comment about the likely legal significance of the Court’s taking up this matter so soon after Grutter.
The divine Ms. L is probably right that “the decision to hear the case signals the change in the guard” at the court. And I hope she is right in fearing that, without Justice O’Connor, “the whole doctrine [of ‘diversity’] unravels” because she was its “linchpin.” Still, since C-Ville is published in a small town with a highly ranked law school filled with highly regarded constitutional scholars right up the street, you’d think it could do better than to turn for comment to a legal commentator known more for her engaging, cheeky styly than for the depth of her analysis or the weight of her views.
On the other hand, Ms. L did reinforce the sky-is-falling point C-Ville apparently wanted to make. Here, for example, is the article’s last paragraph:
A reversal of the diversity rationale would likely eviscerate lingering desegregation efforts in public schools across the country. What would that mean locally, particularly in light of Charlottesville’s tarnished segregationist past and decision to close its schools in 1958 in the wake of Brown? “Not much, initially,” says Ned Michie, a member of the Charlottesville School Board. That’s because—unlike the schools currently before the court—Charlottesville’s public schools don’t allow students to apply to the school of their choice. Students simply go to the school in their district. But Michie notes that other local issues, such as redistricting for purposes of balancing the socio-economics of neighborhood schools, come up “periodically” before the board, and do implicate race. Cases like these, it’s safe to say, could be impacted quite seriously by the Supreme Court’s decision.
Does C-Ville really want to argue that “desegregation” means assigning students (and presumably others) to slots based on their race? (Don’t answer that. I suspect it does.) In any event, I hope Mr. Michie knows more about schools than he does about constitutional law. To say that a decision restricting race-based school assignments would prevent redrawing school districts to produce more socio-economic similarity among them is bizarre. It’s rather like saying if race and gender preferences are barred doctors will no longer be able to provide breast, prostate, and cervical cancer screenings.
Oh wait. Critics of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative do make that claim.
Liberalism has reached such a state that it’s no longer possible to make reductio ad absurdum arguments against its zanier assertions.
