A Stitch in Haste

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Monday on two challenges to school districts that choose, without compulsion from the federal government, to assign students in such a way as to create racially diverse schools:

The Bush administration is siding with parents against the school districts, arguing the policies are an unconstitutional, albeit well-meaning, "racial balancing" without a compelling justification. "A well-intentioned quota is still a quota," the administration said in a brief submitted on the Kentucky case.

Civil rights advocates say a ruling that bars schools from taking race into account would deal a devastating blow to the promotion of diverse schools.

First, we must recite the required libertarian mantra that in a system of strictly private education — or even a system of public finance rather than public provision — such questions as these would simply not arise. Go figure.

Having said that, there is a key difference between these quota or quasi-quota systems and those used in competitive colleges as authorized under the chain of cases stretching from Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), to Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (a chain that, recall, is on my list of the Ten Worst Supreme Court cases).

The University of Michigan Law School may very well believe that creating a "diverse" student body is a desirable goal — that it will somehow help produce better lawyers. I'm skeptical. But one way or the other, it certainly won't do any good for those who are denied admission as a result of racial preferences — you can only benefit from a racially diverse law school if you're actually enrolled there. By excluding — and that's a critical facet — anyone based on racial factors is unconscionable, un-American and, at least in my opinion, patently unconstitutional, the Supreme Court notwithstanding.

But the factoring in of race within a school district does not "exclude" any child from attending school within the district. It's a fundamentally different framework than college admissions. Every student "re-assigned" to create a network of racially diverse schools still gets an education. (The Louisville and Seattle systems are a little more complicated than that, but the basic framework, not the nuances, are the source of the controversy.) Bottom line: No one is shut out.

So that makes it okay, right?

Wrong:

But to some parents, all of that is broad theory that does not compensate for denying kids the school of their choice or the one in their neighborhood.

Louisville parent Crystal Meredith ... says the plan kept her son, Joshua McDonald, from attending a nearby elementary school.

It seems rather obvious to me (though I am of course not a parent) that there are clear benefits to truly local schooling (i.e., going to the school closest to your home).

And the costs aren't simply economic — school buses burning more gasoline and such. There is a certain real if intangible utility, both for the student and the parent, from knowing that the school is close to the home. Medical emergencies, storms and blackouts come to mind. And even in the era of cell phones and instant messaging, isn't there an irrefutable logic behind having kids who live in the same neighborhood go to the same school? So they can do homework together, develop closer friendships, etc.? How can a school district — or the Supreme Court — weigh such costs against the purported benefits of "diverse" student bodies and decide that one interest is more "compelling" than the other?

So here's my proposed compromise: Allow school districts to engage in this racial reassigning, but only if each household has an inviolate right to opt out in favor of the local school, and only the local school. Note that this is not the same as unfettered school choice; that would be far too libertarian approach for this Court. Recognize the clear "compelling interest" in being close to home if the parent recognizes it, while also strive, even if via color, for a color-blind society if and only if the parent does not object.

That's my decision. Any dissents?

The cases are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (05-908) and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (05-915). More thoughts from SCOTUSblog, George Will.