Tom Baldwin in Washington
We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times
The US Supreme Court was accused yesterday of rolling back one of its landmark rulings of the civil rights era by rejecting plans to ensure that America’s schools remained racially integrated.
The decision will be seen as further evidence that President Bush’s appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the court have shifted the balance of power decisively towards social conservatives.
After the court split 5-4 on the issue, dissenting liberal justices denounced the vote as flying in the face of legal precedent and, in particular, the 1954 Brown v Board of Education ruling, which abolished segregation of black and white schoolchildren.
Chief Justice Roberts insisted, however, that he had honoured the principle of the court’s decision 53 years ago. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he said. “Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesn’t mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it.”
Yesterday’s ruling on schools policy in Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, will place question marks over hundreds of similar systems across America that have been designed to guarantee racial diversity in classrooms. The Bush Administration had sided with parents who took legal action against policies that prevented their children from attending preferred schools.
Crystal Meredith, a white single mother in Louisville, sued after her request to transfer her five-year-old son Joshua to a school closer to home was turned down. This was because of policies introduced during desegregation to ensure broad racial diversity across the US education system. Schools in Louisville spent 25 years under a court order to eliminate the effects of state-sponsored segregation. When it was lifted recently, the school board decided to keep much of the plan in place to prevent education from becoming segregated once more – a decision Mrs Meredith challenged successfully.
She said yesterday: “My son is my world and I will never regret fighting for his rights. I only hope this case has brought attention to the school board and this community that each child’s education is more important than their plan.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy – who effectively holds the casting vote between liberals and conservatives on the bench – offered an opinion that race could still be used in some circumstances to achieve diversity, even though he backed yesterday’s ruling.
But Justice Stephen Breyer said that Brown v Board of Education would be undermined by the ruling. “It reverses course and reaches the wrong conclusion,” he said. “It distorts precedent, it misapplies the relevant constitutional principles, it announces legal rules that will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools.”
The ruling was the first on this issue since 2003, when the court upheld consideration of race in college admissions.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who approved of the limited use of race, has since retired and her replacement, Justice Alito, was in the majority that struck down the school system plans in Kentucky and Washington.
Recent rulings
Other right-leaning rulings under Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts:
Rumsfeld v Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006) The Government may withhold federal funds from universities that refuse military recruiters equal access to campus resources
Gonzalez v Carhart (2007) Constitutionality of laws banning partial-birth abortion is upheld
Federal Election Commission v Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) Interest groups’ “issue ads” are free speech, and are not subject to restrictions under elections law
Morse v Frederick (2007) A school did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating student Joseph Frederick’s pro-drug “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner and suspending him
Source: Times database
How the new breed of location based mobile services can find your nearest cashpoint, restaurant or wi-fi hotspot
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Are you California dreaming? Explore the wonders of the Golden State. Also enter our fantastic competition
See the best entries in this year's competition
Your brain is capable of more than you might think...
An interactive preview of the brand new For Your Eyes Only exhibition
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

Love Sudoku? Play our brand new interactive game: with added functionality and daily prizes

Are you irritable when you return from work? Drained of emotion? You could be suffering from boreout
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
We've trawled the brochures and websites to find this summer’s best holidays for every taste and budget

Overseas contacts and local business information


A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests


2006
£189,500
NW England
2008/08
£169,950
NW England
2007/57
£35,000
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
Circa £82,000 per annum
Birmingham Women's Hospital
Birmingham
To £28k
Barclaycard
Various (outside London)
£
Up to £66,000 per annum
Hertfordshire County Council
South East
To £38k
Barclaycard
Northampton/Liverpool
2 Bathrooms, Balcony and Garden
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Dining, Shopping & Riverside Pk
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property.
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
While I generally disagree with everything the court has decided since Roberts became chief justice, this is one they (finally) got right.
The original Brown case was about ending school assignments solely on the basis of race, which is exactly what this case is about.
All that stuff about reversing the effects of past discrimination with quotas and entitlements was added later. After working those added issues for two generations, going on three, they have already achieved whatever effects they could have achieved. It is finally time to say discrimination is wrong. Period.
Ben Hoff, NJ, USA
Why is it every time the Supreme Court rules to ensure the equality of all people, regardless of race, it is portrayed as a blow to black communities of America by nearly every media outlet? I mean I can understand politicians exploiting anything to get a vote or two so I'm not surprised by the democratic candidates antics last night.... but why the media too?
There are plenty of other methods and programs to de-segregate schools that don't rely of discriminating people based on race... but they aren't mentioned ever... just that we are somehow eroding de-segregation by suggesting that discrimination based on race is always wrong.... Hell, picking schools out of a hat randomly is far more fair than filling racial quotas!
Chris, Atlanta, GA, USA
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,â he said. âSimply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesnât mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it.â
well explained by Justice Robert
Juan C, Miami, FL
Surely after 50 years of forced integration in the schools in the USA, the system can now be called racist as it gives one ethnic minority a benefit that, although was necessary in the sixties, is now obsolete as the perceived disadvantages of this minority must have disappeared due to at least two generations receiving the same education advantages as all others? If this minority still needs this "advantage" that is causing unnecessary hardships for many other students, and due to the now "non-green busing" needed, the Americans need to be honest and admit why this is so after all this time and start working on overcoming this reason.
Brian Deller, Marbella, Spain
If the plan was to, "..ensure that Americaâs schools remained racially integrated" then the plan failed and should be stopped for that reason alone. The fact that something doesn't work still means something doesn't it?
I don't know why it's so hard for people to comprehend that you cannot end discrimination if you are discriminating yourself.
Rich Gonzalez, Philadelphia, USA
The article suggests that American schools are racially diverse. They are not. Much depends on the economic level and neighborhood. School desegregation has occurred naturally in line with residential desegregation, and the decision in question merely limits the idiotic efforts of some school districts to bus kids are all over to achieve some ratio determined by the administrators to be optimal. There is no practical way to force a school to have a population that exactly mirrors racial percentages in society. In Los Angeles, for example, the majority is Hispanic due to residence patterns and most middle to upper income parents send their kids to private school.
Peg Manning, Los Angeles, CA
You missed the point. The Court is saying that the lack of racial balance is not segregation and thus is not subject to the same standard. While racial balance may be wanted, you can't discriminate to get it. As Justice Roberts said:
âThe way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.â
Winthrop Bastin, San Diego, USA/California