Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Counting down to a colorblind Constitution

Three-and-a-half months ago, as U.S. Supreme Court justices were wrapping up their first term together as the Roberts Court, we noted that the next term would present "Another Chance for a Colorblind Constitution." The justices had just agreed to hear two cases challenging the practice of some public school districts to use race in deciding whether students can choose to attend the elementary or high school of their choice. And, we predicted that "[m]aybe America's next generation of students will get to see a colorblind Constitution after all -- at least through their high school graduation."

Our unstated reference, of course, was to the High Court's decision three terms ago allowing the University of Michigan to prefer certain students for admission to law school based on their skin color. The justices decided to uphold race-based affirmative action by the barest of majorities, 5-4, with perennial swing voter Justice Sandra Day O'Connor being the margin of victory.

In fact, the highest court in the land -- and by that we mean Justice O'Connor -- had come exceptionally close to ending racial preferences once and for all back then. After all, there were two University of Michigan cases decided that day, and Justice O'Connor had split her votes, upholding the law school's "individualized" affirmative action program while striking down the undergraduate college's rigid racial formula. But, just as in so many other areas of law, Justice O'Connor was either unwilling or incapable of painting a clear line on the constitutional canvas when presented with the opportunity to clarify the blurry Equal Protection picture.

The same is not likely to be true this term. Indeed, if we had waited just a few more weeks before publishing our thoughts last June, we would have had some hard evidence to bolster our prediction that the Roberts Court will reverse course when it comes to affirmative action this term. That is because the two new justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- gave us a crystal clear indication of what their legal thinking is on the issue of government-mandated racial distinctions in a contentious and fractious voting rights case decided at the end of the last term.

Specifically, in an opinion that only Justice Alito joined, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." It is true the comment from the two new justices was penned as an objection to five justices' willingness to engage in racial balancing of an electoral district. But, despite the opportunity to limit the rhetoric to that arcane and narrow area of the law, Chief Justice Roberts chose not to do so, and Justice Alito decided to sign on.

In other words, by our count, there are now five votes to do what Justice O'Connor never could -- shut the door on state-sponsored racial discrimination regardless of whether it comes in the form of the past (forced segregation) or the present (affirmative action). We already knew about the first three votes, since Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas had voted consistently in both University of Michigan cases to reject any consideration of a student's race in the admissions decision. Now there is every reason to believe that two more votes, those of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, will be just as principled in ensuring the "equal protection of the laws" for everyone. If we are correct, it might have taken more than two centuries too long, but the colorblind Constitution will still be better late than never.

Source





A Higher Education Lesson from the Nobels

This year, in all but literature and peace, United States researchers took home the Nobel. From economics, to physics, to medicine, to chemistry, US researchers are bar none the best in the world. This is on top of the Times Higher Education Supplement that ranks US universities as the best in the world. Why then, do conservatives complain of liberal indoctrination?

A key thing to notice is that the only "soft" academic field in the Nobels is for literature, a prize an American hasn't won since 1993 (Toni Morrison). This should hardly come as a surprise as American "culture" is saturated with insipid nudity and mindless entertainment.

However, something deeper is also true. While academics may be left-ward tilting in academia, in the "practical" fields those biases rarely come into play (if they exist). Is there a conservative or liberal way of looking at cosmic background radiation? The bias is prevalent in the "soft" sciences and liberal arts. No economist worth his salt seriously debates that socialism works, they all on some level or another accept the free market. The conservatives have all but won the fight in economics.

In engineering and business schools, the students are cultured into achieving results. It is in the liberal arts schools where a majority of students end up where the curriculum can be bent and tilted any which way. The entire field of sociology has bought into the liberal agenda leaving students without exposure to any other trains of thought. Thus all our sociological experts, whom we turn to for advice on sociological issues, have a narrow-minded view of the world.

It is in these soft sciences where liberal bias is most damaging, particularly when it shuts down any dissent. Instead of presenting all points of view and engaging in a "war of ideas", students are indoctrinated into one train of thought without any ability to engage in any serious debate. The same can be said of philosophy departments, some political science departments, some history departments, and the myriad of "culture-based" departments.

The result is a political culture that is unable to look at the world around itself and pigeon-holes itself into firmly held doctrines and unquestioned ideas. Bias here is the most damaging to society.

Source





South Australia's public schools in deep doo doo

Private schools with problems like these would have the pants sued off them

Dilapidated South Australian schools are turning to the Federal Government for financial help, with students having been forced to use "disgusting" toilets, 90-year-old chairs and unsafe play equipment. Two schools said they had waited 15 years for outdated chairs to be replaced, another said it had been concerned about dangerous play equipment since 1995 and yet another had been raising concerns about decrepit carpet since 1998. The number of federal funding applications from South Australia's 605 public primary and secondary schools has tripled in the past 12 months, with almost 1000 requests for help this year.

Parents are also being increasingly called upon to raise their own repair funds, with primary school principals saying this was now "essential" to maintain schools. Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop yesterday blamed the State Government for the maintenance backlog.

The Advertiser applied to the Education Department, under Freedom of Information laws, for the reasons behind South Australian schools' applications for funding, but this was denied on the grounds that providing that information would cost $20,904. However, The Advertiser is aware that SA schools requesting financial assistance include:

A NORTHERN suburbs primary school where students said the toilets were so "disgusting" and hard to keep clean they avoided using them;

A HIGH school in Adelaide's northwest with 90-year-old chairs in its school hall;

AN inner-city school where junior primary students were "too frightened" to use the toilets;

A SOUTHERN suburbs primary school where an uneven surface on the school's hard court was causing student accidents;

A COUNTRY school where a playground audit found the equipment was "largely non-compliant and unsafe", leaving junior primary students with no equipment;

A WESTERN suburbs primary school where the outdated air conditioning was so noisy that teachers could not speak to students unless it was turned off; and

A PRIMARY school in Adelaide's north-east where the smell of toilets was "unbearable" and pervaded classrooms in the same corridor.

The Investing in Our Schools program provides grants of up to $150,000 to government and non-government schools for infrastructure projects. SA schools made 339 grant applications in round one and 492 grant applications in round two last year. However, the demand for financial assistance has increased significantly this year, with the number of grant applications for round three this year climbing to 984.

Ms Bishop said the poor standards shown in some of the state's public schools were due to State Government neglect of maintenance problems. She said the $26.5 million that had been provided to SA schools by the Federal Government under its Investing in Our Schools program should have come from the state. "It is a disgrace that state Labor governments are not supporting their schools," Ms Bishop said.

However, state Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith said the Federal Government's $26.5 million contribution was a "drop in the ocean" compared to the $550 million the state had spent in public school building improvements in the past five years. This included a $300 million school building program in this year's Budget to fund six new schools, as well as many capital projects and school facility improvements. "The Rann Government has instigated Education Works, the biggest school building reform program in three decades, and we would be delighted if the Federal Government backed it with funding," Dr Lomax-Smith said.

SA Primary Principals Association president Glyn O'Brien said yesterday fundraising by governing councils was "essential" as "schools have never got enough money".

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My home page is here

***************************

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I'm constantly amazed to see schools that are in grave disrepair with dilapidated classrooms, outdated resources and lacking the most basic technology.
Yet governments continue to waste millions of dollars on implementing failed idealogies such as outcomes based education.