For Whom The Affirmative Action Bell Tolls?

How does one respond to the death of affirmative action in education?

The affirmative action policy is, of all the legacies from the super-liberal, actively political Warren and Burger courts, probably the most offensive example of judicial law-making.

By setting a legal precedent that introduced a standard into the educational system that had no history in society at the time, and no firm legal foundation, the US Supreme Court created an expectation that could not be fully met, and an intrinsic obstacle to enforcement.

In the 50s, 60s and 70s, Warren and Burger were ahead of the majority of society in their belief in progressive, inclusive, active social policy. They wrote opinions that acknowledge and reflect what they view as the failings of society to integrate and move forward. Their rulings compensated for popular improvement and innovation.

If their perception of society was correct, and their methods of encouragement successful, then we are better off now that we have applied their ideas. Better off that racial integration has occurred at a faster rate than our covert and overt racism would have allowed without that push.

As a believer in integration and racial appreciation [NOT equality, that is an eraser - acknowledgement and love of differences], I am thankful that we live in the society that came of these movements.

As a believer in judicial restraint, though, I can not support the active reading of the tenets of the Constitution, Bill of Rights [Amendments 1-10], and its Amendments [through 27], EVEN THOUGH it may lead the way to new perspectives. That is the job of individuals and their elected representatives.

And here's why: when the pendulum swings the other way, it swings back fast and hard, and we are forced into a MORE conservative reading that may, as in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al, move us back into a world of de facto educational segregation.

As the 14th Amendment so eloquently states, no one should have opportunities provided or taken away based on all the superficial (but identity-crucial) differences that define us. And, back-step though this decision may be [they've been undermining this precedent since Bakke] in terms of racial integration in schools in some areas (and impacts in the society at large), it is about time that the judiciary retreat from an intrusive stance on this topic.

We should, by now, be able to recognize that racial integration, and the mainstream socialization that takes place in the school system are beneficial to our melting-pot mythology and equality propaganda. [And to the people that are actually exposed to differences that inspire them to consider other opinions, explore conflicting idea(l)s, and absorb varied cultural phenomena. But the behavioral mainstreamlining of US culture is a devastating loss.]

We should also be able to put in place other mechanisms of social control [er, influence] that will be more effective: mixed-income housing [a fantasy in property-obsessed US culture], work/social programs, application-focused educational institutions [not trade schools, but learning through the development of ideas and the execution of those ideas using the resources available and skills necessary to innovate] and a vastly improved electoral system with a policy-driven multi-party system.

We should. But, do we? Can we?

Damn those conservative jurists and their precedential purity! If only that translated across the board - I bet the Bongs 4 Jesus kid wishes the Supreme Court would back up even further.