Ujima Newspaper, Volume 1, Issue 9 - December 1977

UJIMA Volume 1, Number 9 LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY DECEMBER, 1977 Dialectics Of School Desegregation by Eugene Peterson Ed. Note: Eugene Peterson is currently an instructor in the So¬ cial Sciences division at Seattle Central Community College. The issue of public school de¬ segregation has assumed increas¬ ing importance since the land¬ mark 1954 Supreme Court deci¬ sion that outlawed de jure seg- regatation in American public schools. Specifically, much de¬ bate has centered upon the ulti¬ mate value of public school de¬ segregation as it relates to the goals of Black education. Oppo¬ nents of desegregation charge that integration has become a method of destroying progressive attempts to institute community control of Black education in local Black communities. Furth¬ ermore, these opponents charge, massive dispersion of Black chil¬ dren into majority isolated envi¬ ronments can be just as psychologically and sociologi¬ cally debilitating as segregation. Proponents of desegregation state that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Furthermore, they fear that community control without sub¬ stantial economic backing will tragically narrow educational op¬ portunities for Black children. Fi¬ nally, these proponents cite the many positive psychological and social advantages stemming from a multi-racial, multi-cultural, in¬ tegrated education. The 1954 Supreme Court de¬ cision, Brown vs. Board of Edu¬ cation, Topeka, Kansas, insured that the legal dimensions of de¬ segregation would have a pro¬ found impact upon Black educa¬ tion. The Brown decision, relying heavily on sociological and psychological data, argued that segregated education facilities could never be considered equal. Of greater significance, however, was the finding rendered by the Court that segregated education impacted negatively “upon the minds and hearts” of young Black students. This finding seemed to indicate that the Court viewed segregation as being both morally and legally wrong. Coupled with subsequent events that would unfold, this aspect of the Brown decision helped make public school desegregation a very emotionally charged and polarizing issue within both the majority and minority com¬ munities. In turn, the manner in which decision makers would approach the question of de¬ segregation was affected. Since the 1954 Court decision carefully sidestepped the issue of implementation, much of the subsequent work of the federal and lower courts involved the conceptual problem of defining what constitutes a desegregated public school system. Clearly, the drift of court opinion has moved more and more towards a numer¬ ical definition of desegregation. The overall effect of adopting a public standard for desegregation that relies upon a numerical base is to make pupil movement the cornerstone of any desegregation plan. Inevitably, this movement draws a strong reaction from both the majority and minority com¬ munities, who, for differing reasons, see pupil dispersion as eventually eroding the integrity of neighborhood-based, public school education. Recently, the Supreme Court has strongly reiterated its opinion thatc/e/acfo segregation must be a concern of local school boards and school district administrators. In effect, the Court has ruled that public school systems can be held accountable for errors of omis¬ sion as well as errors of commis¬ sion. The implication appears to be that local school boards and school district administrators must take decisive action when de facto patterns of school segre¬ gation emerge. The Court’s disposition to¬ wards de facto segregation creates additional problems in¬ volving public school desegrega¬ tion. For example, must has been written concerning the phenomena of redlining and dis¬ investment. Both contribute to “suburban flight,” the pattern of middle class out-migration from city to suburbs. Traditionally, local school boards and school district administrators have ig¬ nored the results of this process. They view this form of de facto segregation as completely out of their span of control. The new charge from the court gives local school districts added respon¬ sibilities in areas where they seemingly have had little power to make authoritative decisions. Finally, the Supreme Court has moved towards the position that cross-district (urban- suburban) desegregation re¬ medies are unconstitutional. This shift compounds the problems of urban school districts, which are mandated by the courts to de¬ segregate, but which are also be¬ coming increasingly homogene¬ ous. As the percentages of Black youngsters in inner city schools increase steadily, desegregation options for local school districts narrow. In short, there are simply not enough white youngsters to make numerically-based de¬ segregation work. The Supreme Court’s position on cross-district desegregation leaves most urban school districts between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In summation, the legal di¬ mensions of segregation appear to be quite ambiguous. The Court has clearly decided that separate education is inherently unequal. Nevertheless, aside from numerical percentages, the Court has failed to generate suffi¬ cient guidelines in the area of de- segregation implementation. This failure has contributed in part to the high degree of emo¬ tion surrounding the issue of de¬ segregation in both the white and Black communities. In addition, the definition of what constitutes a segregated school system has been broadened, and local school dis¬ tricts have been mandated to move swiftly to remedy the situa¬ tion. The Court has, however, also limited potential desegrega¬ tion strategies by taking the posi¬ tion that cross-district (urban- suburban) desegregation plans are unconstitutional. The ambiguous role of the Court makes one thing clear. The legal dimensions of desegrega¬ tions will indefinitely remain clouded. The pronouncements of Supreme Court Justices simply do not result in quality, multi¬ racial educational experiences for Black and white school children. Since the 1954 Court deci¬ sion, school districts across the (Continued on Page 5) Former LMU grads Detroit Flanagan (left), and Steve Rhodes (right), were panelists at “Straight Talk On Careers" program sponsored by the Placement Center in November. f