Those who defend assigning students to schools on the basis of their race argue that doing so is necessary in order to “desegregate” or to prevent “resegregation” or to provide a “racial balance” that more or less reflects the demography of the city.
I wonder if any of those advocates have taken a look lately at the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which I just did in writing the post immediately below. If they have, they would have found Title IV, Section 401(b), which declares:
”Desegregation” means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but “desegregation” shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.
Case closed. Unless, of course, laws don’t mean what they say. But then, many of the advocates of a “living Constitution” also apparently believe in “living laws” whose meaning judges are allowed to “construe” to mean just about anything.
John writes:
>>>”Those who defend assigning students to schools on the basis of their race argue that doing so is necessary in order to “desegregate” or to prevent “resegregation” or to provide a “racial balance” that more or less reflects the demography of the city.
I wonder if any of those advocates have taken a look lately at the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which I just did in writing the post immediately below.”
Well, yes. I’m an “advocate” and I read it. I think it would be enlightening for you to and the rest of the anti-affirmative action types to read from the Civil Rights Act of 1968:
>>>”>>>”Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful–
(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. “
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm
Of course, some of our conservative friends weren’t satisfied with this act.
>>>”Beginning in 1980, Senator Orrin Hatch spoke in favor of rolling back provisions of the Fair Housing Act. Acting on his motion in 1988, Congress voted to weaken the ability of plaintiffs to prosecute cases of discriminatory treatment in housing. But the Fair Housing Act was also amended in 1988 to allow plaintiffs’ attorneys to recover attorney’s fees.”
http://www.all-dictionaries.com/encyclopedia/EN/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
So John, we now see HOW the game is being played.
Argue against desegregation of schools while hamstringing the enforcement of laws against segregation in housing.
It’s a classic bait and switch, and not surprising in the least.
–Cobra
Actually, Cobra, you’re the one who’s guilty of double standards here. The 1968 act that you quote (and quote and quote and quote … when a summary would do) still embodies the non-discrimination principle that you reject … except when you don’t.
Discrimination on the basis of race is wrong wherever and whenever it occurs. The fact that some of current racial housing patterns is the result of housing discrimination (certainly all of it is not) does not justify discrimination in other areas.
John writes:
>>>”Discrimination on the basis of race is wrong wherever and whenever it occurs.”
You need to explain that to people like Senator Orrin Hatch (R) Utah, and other conservatives who don’t seem to share your race discrimination equivocation statement.
You’ve posted on this blog that you are for “vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws”. Here you have a prominent conservative Republican senator doing everything in his power to IMPEDE that enforcement. I know that the MCRI junta won’t comment on this (it’s off-script for them to mention discrimination that doesn’t adversely affect suburban whites), but where is YOUR “outrage” on this fact?
John writes:
>>>”The fact that some of current racial housing patterns is the result of housing discrimination (certainly all of it is not) does not justify discrimination in other areas.”
“Some?” LOL!
>>>“…Also in this year’s report is a description of housing complaint data for 2005. Although NFHA (National Fair Housing Alliance) estimates that at least 3.7 million instances of housing discrimination occur annually, fewer than one percent of these complaints are reported. Detailed in the report are the 2005 housing discrimination complaint data compiled from NFHA member agencies nationwide, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and state and local government agencies. NFHA has collected this type of data on an annual basis since 1996.”
http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/resources/newsArchive/resource_24256802754560627686.pdf
This report should be required reading for Discriminations followers. It’s a DEVASTATING rebuke to the “say, haven’t we made enough progress” crowd, and it dove-tails right back into the bait and switch tactics of re-segregating schools across the land…
>>>”One of the most blatant findings of NFHA’s (National Fair Housing Alliance) investigation was the use of schools as a proxy for the racial composition of neighborhoods. In many instances, real estate agents intentionally steered White families away from primarily African-American and Latino school districts. Their intention is revealed in the illegal comments they made to potential homeseekers. As with other types of steering, this serves only to damage communities from which people are steered, and to keep our country segregated…”
http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/resources/newsArchive/resource_24256802754560627686.pdf
Hmm…lemme see how this works…if you can’t segregate the neighborhood schools, segregate the neighborhood the schools are in. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, but your omission of the housing discrimination part of the equation is yet another example of Cobra Argument #2, “Selective Outrage”.
–Cobra