WASHINGTON: OK, HERE'S THE LAW NOW: SCHOOLS CANNOT.....
....consider race in placement....
....except when they can......
....which is determined by....
whether their reasons....are for achieving diversity......
....and they really, really mean it..
Special note to Justice Kennedy.....could you please land somewhere on this subject? Thousands of School Administrators would kinda like to know what the law is.
185 pages of pure reading pleasure:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-908.pdf
posted by UMRBlog @ 09:29
12 comments
12 Comments:
Today has been such a pleasant day… amnesty bill dies, SCOTUS makes sensible rulings….
The Editorial board from the NY Times must be jumping from the roof right now
Even Voinavich voted “no”… he must have finally read the bill...
frustrating isn't it? When you rely on someone to make a decision and do the right thing and they fail in our eyes but you know they look at themselves in the mirror and smile and sleep like a baby at night.
On amnesty, build the fence first and stop the invasion of illegals and then we will talk about what to do with those already in the country....
HW 1500,
It really pains me that we got a big media splash but not really much guidance for all the good people on the front lines of education trying to the right thing.
Isn't it interesting that both sides say they are compelled to opposite conclusions by the logic of Brown v. Bd.
TYFCB
I am pro-fence but I am also for really making it hurt for the illicit employers who know exactly what they're getting when they hire illegals.
I've discussed my proposal elsewhere but the best non-criminal penalty is just not letting them deduct payroll, at all. What would that do to the old pucker factor?
The penalty must be so stiff that the employer would lose everything. This has to be handled in a Kenesaw Mountain Landis kind of way, if the penalty is a fine, they will pay the fine and go on. If employers would not hire them, the illegals would have only one other reason to come to the States, DRUGS!! We want to vilify the illegal but not the employer. Kind of like the john and the prostitute.
You might wanna watch using "stiff" in the same paragraph as the prostitute analogy.
TYFCB
I laughed outloud....
Isn't the Seattle model the one that had a white girl being bussed over an hour away from her neighborhood in order to acheive diversity rather than attending one closer? I can't say that this is ever a good thing-I am not a fan of dragging kids far away from their communities in order to acheive some goal regarding diversity.
The "diversity industry" in this country isn't helping any school district to educate their students or make more effective use of their limited budgets. What it has done, in my view, is create another level of bureaucrats and spawned a cottage industry to keep them in the pipeline.
We have diversity consultants, we have diversity workshops, we have diversity counselors, we have Special Assistants to the President on Diversity (who are paid six figures), we have lawyers who specialize in diversity law.
Harvard Medical School has an "Office for Diversity and Community Partnership" where they are actively seeking new job applicants in many areas and have managed to create an entire division of the University based on the two meaningless codewords "Diversity" and "Community".
If you really study it, one of the things you quickly come to realize is that "diversity" actually is a code word for "post-graduate money making opportunity using federal funds."
I am for the fence also. Not that rinky dink thing they show on TV, but a hight tech fence like Israel had between Palastine. I don't care about the employers - these people work hard for their money.
1759,
I was kind of directing the discussion to the need for legal guidance from the highest court in the land.
Still, I appreciate your sharing your opinion on the whole concept of busing.
TYFCB
The comment was more about the absurdity of diversity, the bus was only the vehicle.
Anyway, I agree with your point on the vagueness of Kennedy. I think Kennedy enjoys being the “swing vote” (24-0 with the majority this term) now and, although he generally leans conservative on most legal issues, his position may affect his reasoning in reaching opinions. It is in the interest of the power broker to narrowly resolve all issues since that course makes it ever more likely more power-brokering will be needed down the road.
Kennedy did essentially the same thing in Kelo. His deciding opinion was so narrowly drawn as to not create a binding precedent. He basically sided with the “minority” in agreeing government did not always have this power without concurrent judicial review, but that they did in that case. Another “4-1-4” decision . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home