Week Seven - Desegregation, Integration, and the Limits of the Law
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
The piece that strikes me most in the reading for this week comes from the article written by Russo, Harris III, and Sandidge, in which they make note that Brown v Board was a unique case for the time in that it applied social sciences to sway the opinion of both the judges and the public. This is a note that we have discussed several times in class, but it is one that has particularly stuck with me, for it draws attention to a new wave of court procedures. This technique proved that there are numerous angles that should be considered and understood when addressing a sensitive subject matter in order to produce a decision that promotes equity.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the course of the semester, we have continually revisited the Brown v. Board case and its implication on the meaning of race in the country. In considering the Northcross case, the year of the proceedings is telling revolving around the nature of integration in the South and in Memphis. This case took place well over 15 years of the Brown decision, demonstrating the city's slow push towards desegregating. And yet, the Memphis 13 started the slow integration process in the 1960s through first graders as a means to integrate without inflicting physical and verbal abuse in comparison to integrating high schoolers. Under this application of social sciences, this integration seems to be structurally sound without the precursor of prejudice and racism within young kids. However, Kiel writes about "token desegregation," but I question, how else would Memphis have integrated? Furthermore, in thinking about Kiel in dialogue with the merger that took place between Memphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools, it is evident that segregation is still widely present within city schools. And yet, the merger has not necessarily changed this predicament, so what follows this immediate time period - another means of redistricting and redistributing students from school to school?
ReplyDeleteLamisa is spot on when considering the difficulty of any alternative to desegregating schools in Memphis. We've discussed in class whether or not taking down segregation of schools first was even the correct course of action in the fight against Jim Crow. However, especially with the example set in Little Rock in their desegregation of a public high school, it is easy to understand why integrating elementary and lower schools first would have been a easier approach. Even here, however, there is still tension as the administration of schools has always been a sore subject in the South. It took the 1968 decision in Alexander v. Holmes to fully desegregate Mississippi public schools, and indeed, the merger of SCS and MCS still signifies a reluctance in Southern public school administration to fully integrate in 2017.
DeleteKiel's analysis of the Memphis education system and its struggle to desegregate touches on the unique and problematic reality that Memphis city schools remained separate from the surrounding county school district until 2010. Kiel notes that similar cities like Nashville and Charlotte integrated by combining the districts, Memphis faced exacerbated racial tension and resource discrepancies. Since the Kiel article was published in 2008, prior to the dissolution of the Memphis City School charter, it would be interesting to read Kiel's assessment of the consolidation and subsequent creation of separate suburban school districts as another chapter in the continued struggle to integrate Memphis' school system.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Kiel piece, I was left thinking about the current status of schools in Memphis. “As
ReplyDeletedesegregation orders become history, school districts are left to choose one of two routes: either they may take affirmative steps to maintain some level of integration, or they may do nothing and allow schools to "naturally" re-segregate.” (302). With the knowledge that many of Memphis’s schools are as segregated as they once were before Brown, Brown II, Swann, etc. and that busing and the removal of students and resources from their communities is detrimental, what steps might Memphis take today to avoid “natural re-segrega[tion]? Seeing as busing would be off of the table, perhaps a first step would be taking a long look at the optional programs and they way that they disproportionately attract and benefit white students?
Olivia's last point is something that also occurred to me as I was reading the Kiel piece. Even when some city schools show a more diverse racial student body, segregation usually lies within the optional/honors programs. Is this something that could be corrected policy-wise, or would it require a more critical look and meticulous approach to social factors that create barriers to black academic success in the first place? Furthermore, I do actually believe that during this era of urban revitalization and mass middle/upper-class relocation to the city, whites will begin to enroll their students in city schools in greater numbers. However, I see this taking place in the form of charter and magnet schools, which appear progressive on the surface and do wonders in alleviating white guilt about segregation. Despite this, charter and magnet schools routinely reveal themselves to be elitist by implicitly attracting more privileged students and producing a student body that is not actually reflective of the city's racial makeup. This is just a modern manifestation of white passive resistance to integration as well as the quiet preservation of white supremacy.
DeleteThe Brown v Board article definitely emphasized that there was still a long fight for desegregation even after the decision of Brown II. People too frequently assume that the court decision immediately stopped segregation in school. It was interesting seeing how the number of segregation cases dwindled after the Brown II decision. While in theory that makes sense, once the author noted that there were still over 500 school districts that operate under court order desegregation, it proves that there is still more work to be done, and the courts should be more active in combating it.
ReplyDeleteFrom this week’s reading, I found Russo’s piece particularly interesting. I think that Russo’s piece brought up a really good point about the Brown decisions when he highlighted the facts that Brown I did not “address remedies” and Brown II “neither mandated an immediate end to nor set a time table for eradicating school segregation” (Russo 299). I feel like these are two very important criticisms of both cases that are so often overlooked. I think these aspects of the decisions played a great role on different localities and the ways in which integration was impacted. Moreover, I found it interesting to think about how different regions of the country reacted to both of these decisions.
ReplyDeleteI think the most intriguing aspect of the piece on the Legal History of Equal Opportunities in American Public Education, is the discussion on de jure and de facto segregation and how this country’s school system has been plagued by both. De jure segregation permits segregation by law, and while the Supreme Court decision on Brown ended de jure segregation, segregation in public schools would still remain present. The authors divided their analysis into four timelines to highlight how the legal system has supported segregation throughout many years. I found the last two time periods of 1980-1989 and the 1990s very troubling because of the large presence of segregation. Even though the Supreme Court defends efforts to end segregation there is still more work that needs to be done in order to completely end segregation. I believe that while the Supreme Court did not support efforts of segregation, in recent years, the fact that there are efforts to segregate school systems needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteI found it extremely interesting to read about the Memphis school system in the Kiel article. He writes about how even after the Brown v. Board decision Memphis schools remained largely segregated because they were never consolidated, and points out that even today there are still large racial barriers in the school system in the city. This stood out to me because people often talk about the Brown v. Board case as a landmark decision in desegregation that ended the need for further legislation on the topic; this case, however, proves that even with more legislation attempting to continue desegregation, the separation that existed before the civil rights movement has not been fully eliminated.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting aspect I discovered in this week's reading was how segregated schools still are in today's society. It seems shocking to me that I have not heard these statistics while living here for a year and a half. It comes off to me that the desegregation of schools is almost a lost cause, and the courts don't have a major interest in it anymore.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben, but would even goes as far as to say that our community as a whole has given up on school desegregation. This is partially due to Memphis being seen as a "working class city," forcing many people to believe that education is not as crucial as it actually is. This is largely what caused school segregation even after Brown v. Board. Many white people in the city felt like a quality education was only for whites and not blacks. This is why Memphis has so many private schools. There was a strong effort to privatize education in some way after the court decision. Memphis's education system, therefore, is just another attempt to reinforce racial hierarchy in our city.
DeleteI also found this reading interesting because of the connection it has to me final project proposal on the education gap in Memphis City Schools. Many of the solutions that have been brought up to close the education gap such as the implementation of more Catholic schools available to even non-Catholics and the rise of charter schools, are viable options but still many root problems still persist. These specific problems are ones that stem from earlier periods of school segregation that have now formed into more of a segregation of socioeconomic status, but also still race as well, which can be seen in the Memphis 13 documentary.
ReplyDeleteEach of the pieces for this week show me that even though we like to rely on the Supreme Court and on the law to create justice, laws can only be applied to people and societies that wish to follow them. The delay in Memphis' desegregation of schools after Brown v Board makes this abundantly clear. While laws are incredibly important. I argue that just as important, and maybe even more important, is changing society to accept and desire justice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jess. This is something to be remembered about policy change through the court system. Even though the courts have immense power in judges' tenure, the implementation meant to follow often gets lost. This was also seen somewhat with the ruling on marriage equality in 2015. There were still some areas (ie. Kentucky) in the United States refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. However, though this "trickle down" authority is not always something to be relied on, it always seems to be some type of catalyst for change, which can help movements eventually move forward.
DeleteKeil’s piece provides a very insightful account into the historic racial struggle within Memphis’ education system and how it persists to this day. It seems as if Memphis has progressed very little when is comes to solving chronic segregation within our educational institutions. Schools located within the inner city are not only predominately black, but also face crippling poverty and lack decent schooling. There have been some efforts like the creation of the ASD to aid deteriorating schools within Memphis, however, it doesn’t address the deeply rooted issues that has created this race-based divide and has allowed it to persevere.
ReplyDeleteLike many other students have commented, I found the Kiel piece to be particularly interesting in the way it analyzed historical educational segregation and how it still plagues Memphis today. The question of “what is desegregation?” that Kiel asks is just as relevant today as it was when Brown was first being implemented. Is a private school integrated if students of color make up less than 10% of the student body? If we decide no, how many schools today in Memphis are still de facto segregated? This issue is not only historical, but is still very prominent among Memphis schools today.
ReplyDeleteThe article that dealt with the legal legacy of "Brown" was particularly interesting. It made it clear that, despite the progress made in the Court, while productive, has left some things to be desired. Since the height of desegregation, school integration has clearly been put on the back burner. This speaks to the broader trend of the limits of using the Court as a tool for social change. Specifically, as the national mood shifted after "Brown", and as the makeup of the Court changed, the enforcement of the integration began to suffer.
ReplyDeleteThis week's readings highlighted the fact that the enforcement of equal treatment is only surface-level so much of the time. Exploded Dream: Desegregation in the Memphis City Schools by Daniel Kiel exhibited this with the explanation of Gerald Young's rejection from a local all white school which he was technically allowed to attend as a part of newly established integration law. Kiel's article gave the reader an explicit demonstration of the incomplete lens that black people were seen through and continue to be seen through in showing that the motivation behind blatant discrimination was carried through to slightly more ambiguous discrimination after integration laws were passed. The article expressed that the idea of equality which integration laws were created to engrave in people's minds and lives, was not only failing to permeate into people's mindsets, but seen as only a hindrance to discrimination.
ReplyDelete