Two cases where public schools were using race in determining school admissions and which cases were upheld by two lower courts were overturned by the Supreme Court on Thursday, July 28, 2007.

1. Seattle, which Roberts said had never been under court orders to desegregate, used race as a tiebreaker in assigning students to schools where one race or another predominated.
2. Jefferson County, Ky., comprising greater Louisville, had been subject to court-ordered desegregation, but the order was dissolved in 2001 when the district was declared “unitary.” But the district still used race in deciding on transfer requests among schools.

Sounds like a decision that the leader of the old school civil rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., would applaud. Unfortunately, forty years later, Dr. King’s message has been lost in translation. All the Democrat candidates wishing to be President of the United States had a ‘debate’ at the prestigious Howard University, a Black university in Washington, D.C. which by all accounts turned out to be a pander-fest, with a few condescending and outright insulting comments skewed between.

Nobody plays the race card like a liberal, and every one of our Democrat challengers, the ones with the most to lose, stepped up to the plate to call the Supreme Court’s decision as turning back the clock. Here they are, being their usual dishonest and racial-pimping selves. The two items above is all that the court ruled on, those were the only issues. The ‘turning back the clock’ BS is meant to incite racial tension and to focus hate at Republicans and the administration. And judging by the applause of those present, it did just that. That’s way easier than concentrating on having schools that teach kids to be the next generation of leaders instead of the next generation of drop-outs, and all else that goes with that.

In reality, that place so unfamiliar to this bunch of Presidential wanna-bees, no clock was turned back. It went forward. What else could you call them but race pimps when you know that . . .

the Court stopped short of overturning its precedents on either school desegregation or affirmative action, as Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a key separate opinion, said race could still be a consideration in limited instances in devising school programs to end racial isolation and encourage diversity.

Eugene Robinson’s take pretty much sums up how the uninformed can be so dangerous to the even less-informed in matters such as race. The title of his article on this subject? “Blocking The Schoolhouse Door.” From what you’ve learned so far, do you think his story has the right title?

He says the court does not consider promoting racial diversity in the nation’s public schools a particularly worthy goal. Considering worthy goals is not what the court is for. And framing the court in this way to the Black community is more than being dishonest. The court is there to decide the law. Speaking of the Bush administration and the court, Robinson says “all they need to do is win the vote of one of the court’s more moderate members and — voila — history can be unmade.” Inflammatory? Yes. They are the words of an angry but passionate black man. And also theoretical hyperbole that plays the race card like a Stradivarius.

What’s troubling for liberals is that they are beginning to understand how the judiciary interprets the laws, without an agenda, and without creating more laws. They can’t deal with that. They operate by by-passing the legislative branch by using the courts to advance their agenda instead. They exhibit no trust in nor respect for the American people for behaving like that. For Democrats, a judiciary that operates correctly means (politically) mortal defeat for them, unless and until they learn to trust in the people (the legislature) to make the laws, and trust in the courts to base decisions on those laws. No more adding other things you think would be ‘good.’ That’s what legislatures are for.

And more liberal dogma on diversity, Robinson says “I think the educational process benefits from diversity, and all students are better served in an integrated classroom.” He can think that but he’d be wrong. Better education makes better students, not the color of your neighbor. How many whites are at Howard University again? Isn’t that a Black school? Isn’t someone afraid that they won’t learn right if a white kid isn’t sitting next to him?

It is the curriculum and the quality of teaching we can provide our kids that should be the focus. Putting emphasis on the student’s skin color instead of the student, and on the ‘educational process’ instead of the student, does more to appeal to the soft bigotry of low expectations than to educate the student. If the student’s educational interests were the focus, there would be no objection to the school choice concept. Instead, the focus remains a racial issue on one hand and a union issue on the other, and our kids are caught in the middle and dropping out of school.

related links: Australian, Project 21