[eDebate] FWD: Brown, Affirmative Action & 'overturning' SC decisions
Wed May 24 11:24:48 CDT 2006
For like 5 years Dr. Warner and I have had an ongoing debate about the
Louisville project in which over and over and over I said a) there is room
in most resolutions for the discussion of "race" (so why jettison the topic)
b) we should push for a resolution that has "race" at its core (or as one
of its area) as opposed to jettisoning the topic.
Now that Ede is pushing for a topic that at least has race at the core of
one of its areas I am going to 100% support him. I think so-called
desegregation is one of the tragedies of american education. I particularly
liked his suggestions below:
"All of this on Brown just means the topic goes the other way. Resolved:
That the Supreme Court should re-establish Brown vs. Board of Education as
the precedent for racial desegregation in education. OR overturn one of the
cases that has eviscerated Brown like Miliken."
In any event, the prime mover in American society in terms, at least, of
public attitudes, has been the Supreme Court. We should debtate it.
ps. Hopefully, this doesnt mean that the summer will turn to winter and the
seas will boil.
On 5/24/06, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
> Most of these criticism just dictate direction of a topic. The nature of
> a race-related resolution needs to call for a liberal action to combat the
> roll back of deseg and aff axn. Instead of overturn, we might consider a
> direction towards the outcome: increasing racial integration in one or more
> areas; increasing race-based initiatives. That may work with a mechanism of
> establishing a new precedent. Instead of overturning a decision, can a
> affirmative establish a landmark precedent in some areas.
> All of this on Brown just means the topic goes the other way. Resolved:
> That the Supreme Court should re-establish Brown vs. Board of Education as
> the precedent for racial desegregation in education. OR overturn one of the
> cases that has eviscerated Brown like Miliken.
> As far as the multidirectionality of Aff Axn cases, seems like wordings
> could mandate affirmative action in education.
> An area topic that might accomplish all of this:
> Resolved: That the Supreme Court estalish a new landmark precedent for
> increasing racial integregation through affirmative action or desegregation.
> I'm teaching 3 hours a day (I'm in class as we speak) in May so it's
> unlikely that I'll be able to do a lot of research prior to next week. But
> I'm willing toss out ideas and do what I can, deferring to the fine research
> skills of friends like Professor D-money Breshears..
> >>> Steve Mancuso spmancuso at aol.com> 5/24/2006 11:11 AM >><spmancuso at aol.com%3E+5/24/2006+11:11+AM+%3E%3E>
> David Breshears asked me to post this for him:
> Brown v. Board of Education is all but dead. The Court has abandoned
> all pretenses of enforcing desegregation orders, and school districts
> across the country are resegregating. Busing programs have been
> abandoned, majority minority schools have been (re)created, and all of
> this has been accomplished without overturning Brown.
> I don't think most people realize how rare an actual overturning of
> past precedent occurs. For example, y'all do realize that Brown v.
> Board of Education did not actually overturn Plessy v. Ferguson,
> right? Plessy is still technically "good law," except insofar as it is
> contradicted by the ruling in Brown. Not the same as being
> overturned. Similarly, the Court will allow the resegregation of
> society along racial lines, and is in fact doing just that right now,
> but they will do so without touching Brown. In spite of its practical
> irrelevance, the Brown decision still holds some symbolic value, as
> evidenced by Dr. Warner's citation of the numerous homages & tributes
> that marked the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary a few years back.
> Still, for all that, the decision is largely moribund.
> America's educational system is more segregated now than at any time
> during the past half century. Ironically, schools in the South are
> slightly more likely to be desegregated than those in the North, but
> even this is starting to change. In the wake of Milliken v. Bradley,
> Missouri v. Jenkins, Board of Ed. OKC v. Dowell, etc., the educational
> desegregation project has come to a close. I'm not sure if this helps
> or hurts Dr. Warner's suggestion that overturning Brown be considered
> by the topic committee, but it's a fact that needs to be considered.
> As far as affirmative action goes, and I haven't followed the
> discussion on eDebate at all, so my apologies if this is redundant, but
> overturning any of the recent SC decisions regarding affirmative action
> would create a bidirectional topic. The majority opinions in each of
> these cases recognized the possibility of an affirmative action program
> that passed strict scrutiny, but invalidated each specific instance
> under consideration as not sufficiently narrowly tailored to pass
> muster. So, overturning Grutter or Gratz could entail abandoning the
> strict scrutiny test (no more strict scrutiny for "reverse"
> discrimination), thus allowing broad-based affirmative action, or
> rejecting the idea that any program could pass such a test, thus
> eliminating any race-based affirmative action. Again, apologies if
> this is redundant, but I have no intention of reading through all the
> aff action posts just to see if this point has already been made.
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman