To:

Zcom_simple
Home » ZMag » Jennifer Holladay » White Supremacy Reigns
?1295269164

September 2007

Volume , Number 0
Activism

There are no articles.

Commentary

There are no articles.

Culture

There are no articles.

Features

Class & Gays
Anna marie Smith


Challenges
Renee Saucedo


Media Watch
Scott Sanders


Books
Gabriel San román


Z Papers on Strategy
Jack Rasmus


Ecology
Karen Pickett


Photo Essay
Orin Langelle


Europe
Elise Hugus


Court Decisions
Jennifer Holladay


Fog Watch
Edward Herman


Foreign Policy
Nicolas J.S. Davies


Twentieth Year
Noam Chomsky


Movement Plans
Susan Chenelle


Gay & Lesbian Community Notes
Michael Bronski


Cities
Chris Brizzard


Talking Point
Phyllis Bennis


Student Organizing
Michael Albert


Society's Pliers
Michael Albert


Green Tide
Robin Urevich


Son of Dick
Lydia Sargent


Zaps

There are no articles.

NOTE: Z Magazine subscribers and sustainers have access to all Z Magazine articles here and in the archive. The latest Z Magazine articles available to everyone are listed in the Free Articles box at the top of the table of contents, and are starred in the list below. Questions? e-mail Z Magazine Online.

White Supremacy Reigns

By Jennifer Holladay
PDF Version
Printer Friendly Version
September 2007
 Change Text Size a- | A+

The question before the Supreme Court seemed simple enough: to prevent segregated schooling and its harms, can districts use race as a factor when assigning students to schools? Lawyers for white parents filed lawsuits arguing that using race in school assignment plans is discriminatory, unfair to white people. Attorneys for the districts being sued argued that—given patterns of residential segregation and the fact that whites tend to choose schools that are disproportionately white—race has to be considered to prevent schools from becoming “all white” and “all minority.” 

This summer, the Supreme Court gave us an answer. Well, actually, they gave us a 185-page set of convoluted answers. On the one hand, the Court found the school assignment plans unconstitutional, saying they unfairly targeted individual white students. Four members of the Court declared that schools should never be used to combat de facto segregation. 

On the other hand, a majority of justices concluded that maintaining “diversity” in schools is a compelling interest, but urged us to explore “race-neutral” options to integrate our schools before we can consider race itself. It’s a directive akin to constructing a lung cancer prevention program without targeting smoking in the first place. 

Today’s Supreme Court, flush with new right-wing appointees, has ushered in an era when the national imperative to fight racism shall no longer be the explicit business of our schools. If fighting racism means considering race—and requiring white people to be an explicit part of the solution—well, forget it. That’s just too much to ask. 

Never mind the findings of a brief submitted to the Court by hundreds of the nation’s leading researchers, documenting severe racial inequalities in our nation’s schools. 

Never mind that one-sixth of our nation’s black children attend “apartheid schools”—schools that are plagued by poverty, limited resources, social strife, and health problems. 

Never mind that segregated minority schools have more teachers without credentials who teach subjects in which they are not certified, more instability caused by rapid turnover of both students and faculty, more limited academic curriculum, and more exposure to crime and violence in the school’s neighborhood.  

Never mind that students in these schools tend to perform less well on achievement tests and are less likely to graduate from high school. 

Never mind researchers’ conclusion that school integration is a necessary equalizer. Instead, today’s Supreme Court has issued a directive toward a new era of state-sanctioned segregation, insisting that we cloak our conversations about racial disparities within the sentiments of “diversity.” We can create school assignment plans designed to achieve “diversity,” so long as that diversity isn’t constructed on racial lines alone. To examine race and racism explicitly is to be “unfair” to white people. 

Never mind that it’s not most white students who are floundering in our public schools. Indeed, the federal No Child Left Behind policy uses white students’ performance as the benchmark to judge youths from all other racial and ethnic groups. By those measures, white students are doing exceptionally well. 

Never mind that the point of school integration was never some “miraculous cure” of skin-to-skin contact between the races, but instead to ensure that children of color had access to the financial and social assets bound up in white middle-class children. 

Never mind that, of all the programs implemented in the Civil Rights era to help unfasten white supremacy, school integration was the only one that consistently impacted the lives of millions of white people on a personal level. It was white people’s only assignment requiring personal action. 

Never mind. 

Today’s Court instead instructs our nation to be mindful of white people’s comforts, discouraging conversations about whiteness and power, whiteness and privilege. We are told to adopt “race-neutral,” “color-blind” methods of treating the national disease of racism. It’s a racial version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” 

Yet, as long as race still counts in the U.S., we must scream and yell and raise almighty hell. As the social science brief submitted to the Court showed so clearly, race still counts in U.S. education. At the dawn of the 21st century, a sweeping five-year study concluded that race determines success elsewhere, in everything from job opportunities to housing. 

Treating the national disease of racism means that we must be color-conscious, not color-blind, and we must come to understand that white supremacy lives not just behind the masks of Klanspeople, but also beneath the robes of Supreme Court justices. 

Z 


Jennifer Holladay is a civil rights advocate living in Denver. 

Loading_border