Education and Ferguson | Center for Equal Opportunity

The Center for Equal Opportunity recently sent this letter to the District of Columbia’s attorney general, Karl Racine:

Dear Attorney General Racine,

We are writing with regard to this news story, which says that [a District of Columbia councilmember] and the American Civil Liberties Union have asked you to consider the legality of a proposed new high school’s gender exclusivity.

We respectfully request that, at the same time, you also consider the legality of the racial exclusivity of such programs. We don’t know if the new high school is supposed to be limited to people of certain races, but obviously if it were this would be contrary to decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and its companion case, involving District of Columbia schools, Bolling v. Sharpe (1954).

This particular program aside, we also question the racial focus of the District’s whole “Empowering Men of Color Initiative.” We are sure that the initiative will have many worthwhile programs, but we do not think that, as a matter of law or policy, they should be limited only to individuals of particular races and ethnicities. Why should two boys, who might not only live in the same neighborhood but might even have the same mother, be treated differently because one had a father of one color and the other a father of a different color? Certainly this would be unfair, and it is also in our view clearly illegal. There is no “compelling” interest that the courts have recognized in this area, and such an categorical rule is in any event not “narrowly tailored.”

All this said, we know that the descriptions of programs by public officials as reported in news stories are not always accurate. We hope that the programs here will, in fact, be open to individuals of all racial and ethnic groups, even if it is expected that most of those eligible will, for socioeconomic and other reasons, be more likely to belong to some groups than others.

Thank you very much in advance for your consideration of our concerns. We look forward to your reply.

* * *

Speaking of education, I enjoyed this article on National Review Online about the No Child Left Behind reauthorization currently pending in Congress, and was particularly happy to see this: “[Education Secretary Arne] Duncan’s wish list has included race-based performance targets. . . . The Student Success Act [the Republican No Child Left Behind reform currently before the House] would end the ability of Duncan, and of his successor, to engage in such shenanigans.”

I would add only that, while I do not doubt that Secretary Duncan would like to make things worse, No Child Left Behind has always included an unfortunate racial focus (see my discussion here), and it would be great if Congress removed it altogether.

* * *

And one other education note: Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow — the two conservatives on the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights, with whom the Center for Equal Opportunity does a lot of work — have written a fine letter urging Congress not to grant the Obama administration’s requested 31 percent increase in the budget for the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The two commissioners document “a disturbing pattern of disregard for the rule of law at OCR,” all in the service of fashionable political correctness, of course. Congress should listen.

* * *

Finally, I ought to say something about the reports issued last week by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the recent unpleasantly in Ferguson, Missouri. As for the first report, it was gratifying that even Eric Holder had to concede that the evidence is lacking for the “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” mantra we’ve been hearing for the past several months.

The report about the Ferguson police department itself, however, is less fact-based, alas. As one of co-contributors warned on National Review Online, the Justice Department made dubious use of the “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement in its report (see especially pages 63-70). That approach equates statistical imbalances with proof of discrimination, and it is the biggest problem with the report.

Here are some additional thoughts on my quick reading:

1. Using the disparate-impact approach is bad, and it is misleading not to control for the obvious variables: Naturally there will be more blacks stopped, proportionately, if the black population tends to be younger and poorer than the white population, to say nothing of the relative likelihood of law-breaking activity among different demographic groups. Yet there is no acknowledgment of this in the report.

2. The picture the report paints of how the police and court system works in Ferguson is, no doubt, not a pretty one. But it will be interesting to see what Ferguson’s response is, because there is no effort at all in the report to give both sides.

3. You have to wonder about how much evidentiary value “racist” emails cited in the report should have. And it’s not even clear if these emails were actually sent by policemen rather than simply received by them.

4. The Justice Department treats police departments the way it thinks police departments treat African Americans. That is, it’s looking very hard to confirm its own stereotypes, and the result will be continuing mistrust.

5. It is not a good idea for anyone involved to encourage young poor black males to view the police as illegitimate and racist. That is, it will make the job of the police harder, and it will not improve the life-chances for young poor black males.

6. Is fixing traffic tickets really an unconstitutional outrage (part of the Justice Department’s report)?

7. The report also encouraged more diversity-hiring in the police department. But there was no mention of the legal constraints on race-based hiring.

8. All this said, the most important part of the report, going forward, is the last section on reforms, and it could be worse, at least if Ferguson pushes back a bit.

Related posts: