Non-feasance

Fri Apr 21 14:55:47 PDT 2006

If one can find "communities" that have "geographic. cultural, social, political ties" independent of "race," there may be something to be said.   I wait for the evidence that a social scientist could accept, or even that laypersons could accept, of the existence of such communities.

Honesty requires me to say that I do not believe in the reality of "community control" as a general proposition, and said so the last time I had reason to pay attention to this issue.  That was back in the 1960s and early 1970s.  I touched on this in a book called The Divisible Republic.  (The book also had a paperback first half called The Politics of the Black "Nation", which some people read.  It had a paperback second half called The White Man's Burden, which very few people seem to have read.)  I have not studied the matter enough in recent to know how to improve my former views.

One thing more.  To me "community" means (borrowing from my friend Norton Long) shared moral order.  If The New York Times  correctly quotes Ernest Chambers, he is not seeking community independent of race.

But I should wait and see what others have to say.

My main point, for this list of law-oriented scholars, was to point up non-feasance on the part of the stater attorney general.  I deal. however, with community control as it is Barksdale's major point.  It  is interesting.  I don't think I can ignore it. 

MH

-----Original Message-----
From: Barksdale, Yvette <7barksda at jmls.edu>
To: Marty Lederman <marty.lederman at comcast.net>; matthewhpolsci at aol.com; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; lawcourts-l at usc.edu; jperezmonf at panam.edu; nakoma at aol.com; holden.j at bigpond.net.au; benniethompson at mail.house.gov; Rscottva3 at aol.com
Sent: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:24:38 -0500
Subject: RE: Non-feasance

I think one problem with this plan  is whether racially identifiable districts  are necessary to achieve the goals of the plan  - which appear to be to retain community control. It may well be that communities in the area are primarily racially identifiable, but it does not mean that race  is the salient factor in deciding who should control the schools, rather than particular communities who have geographic, cultural, social, political ties. 

For example, which local community should blacks living in the suburban districts be in  for purposes of local school control. Question – which community would they have a greater stake in? This is going to depend upon  their community ties, not their race. Of course, it may be these communities are predominantly one race or the other. But the cohesion factor is community, not purely race. 

Therefore, wouldn’t drawing racially neutral lines (ex. geographical) , rather than racially – serve the same ends without raising equal protection problems.  And, allowing an opt out for parents, would permit  parents who felt a closer affinity to the community schools in another district to transfer their students to that district. 

It seems needlessly provocative to use race as the factor here. (Perhaps this is a political move to scuttle the plan, and blame the minority advocates who are focusing  on race not community)

yb

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

Professor Yvette M. Barksdale
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct. 
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 427-2737 (phone)
(312) 427-9974 (fax)

***/////////////////////////////////////////***
-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:02 PM
To: matthewhpolsci at aol.com; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; lawcourts-l at usc.edu; jperezmonf at panam.edu; nakoma at aol.com; holden.j at bigpond.net.au; benniethompson at mail.house.gov; Rscottva3 at aol.com
Subject: Re: Non-feasance

Jack Balkin on this story:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/04/return-of-separate-but-equal.html

And Heather Gerken:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/04/beyond-segregationintegration-paradigm.html
----- Original Message ----- 
From: matthewhpolsci at aol.com 
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu ; lawcourts-l at usc.edu ; jperezmonf at panam.edu ; nakoma at aol.com ; holden.j at bigpond.net.au ; benniethompson at mail.house.gov ; Rscottva3 at aol.com 
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:57 PM
Subject: Non-feasance

Am I correctly informed (via The New York Times)  that Nebraska has adopted a statute providing for an African American, a white, and a Hispanic school district in Omaha?

Is this, if true,  not patently in conflict with the overt language of Brown v. Board of Education?

If that is true, is not the state attorney general not patently guilty of non-feasance (if not worse) in not so advising the legislature?

Matthew Holden, Jr.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060421/3cf8530b/attachment.html