Adia McLaughlin
GOVT301
Prof. Walker
Duality Paper
Due Oct. 23, 2018
Part I: Define the Issue
• The idea behind the term racial balance is a principle of the desegregation of public schools following the years after Brown v. Board of Education
o As a result of Brown v. Board of Education, public schools were forced to integrate. It was decided and agreed that schools were separate, but NOT equal.
• The term refers to an even racial distribution of students in particular schools in relation to the racial distribution of school children in an entire school district.
• Racial balancing is highly applicable in and out of a classroom regarding education.
o Policies of social welfare are actively placed to promote and ensure diversity in public school systems.
o Racial balancing supports systems like affirmative action to help diversify places that lack variety. In order to become more cultured and unconsciously competent, diverse classrooms are necessary.
• Busing was one of the first examples of the government mandating integrating schools.
o It was introduced as the Racial Imbalance Act of 1965.
o Though met with a lot of apprehensions, this was the first major push to get schools on the integration wagon.
o Attitudes of whites toward blacks created heavy tension, causing riots at bus stops as well in front of school houses.
“I saw barricades and police officers and just people everywhere. And when I saw all of that, I immediately thought that it was Mardi Gras. I had no idea that they were here to keep me out of the school,” -Ruby Bridges.
• All types of affirmative action are incorporated into our society today, beyond the borders of education. Now it is mainly used to make sure applicants can’t be looked over due to certain traits they have no control over.
o With or without employers being well versed and aware that they are doing it. Diverse working groups, as well as application pools, ensure healthier and culturally collaborative learning environments.
Part II: Give the best arguments and good faith positions for each side
• Racial balancing presents two different sides of the topic.
• Both sides present a good debate of their own interpretation of racial balancing and the constitutional understanding of the practices surrounding racial balancing.
o The first side affirms that racial balancing is a necessity for a well-balanced society that hopes to be consciously competent and cohesive.
In order to make groups more consciously competent there needs to be a wave of different cultures flowing through a union. By understanding different cultures outside of the ones you’ve been exposed to, you become more aware of the lives and the way the lives affect the people who live them.
The overarching purpose of racial balancing in most public education systems is to close the gap between economic groups and race.
• Without government mandated integration, the underprivileged, which unfortunately typically coincides with minorities, would continue to stay in underprivileged areas receiving the accommodations associated with the population of the area. The people of these underprivileged areas are often bounded by the restrictions of segregation. Programs like racial balancing work to fix that.
• Systems like segregation lead to a trickle-down effect. Racial
o Detriments in the education system lead to detriments in all aspects of life, including governance, due to the lack of knowledge of government and rights, as well as the workforce, due to lack of experience.
A factor of racial balancing is to eliminate the inequality and create a (for the most part) fair playing field.
• “What can give integration real political momentum, however, are not the documented benefits to low-income students, but the emerging recognition that middle- and upper-class students benefit in diverse classrooms.” -Amy Stuart Wells, Lauren Fox, and Diana Cordova-Cobo
o Not complying to racial balancing is a violation of the Constitution.
Racial balancing is technically an American citizen right as the Fourteenth Amendment, states that “[it] addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education, [specifically challenging the ideas of] racial discrimination).”
The amendment works as a blanket statement, while up for interpretation, the affirmative side of this resolution would argue that without racial balancing, it allows for blatant discrimination.
• i.e. Educational and professional settings openly showing favoritism to one race over another by giving benefits or detriments to the people of the facility.
o The other side of the argument fosters the conception that the Constitution is color blind.
It can be seen as just as discriminatory to give group benefits based off of race as it is to give detriments. Every person regardless of color should have the same opportunities and by this interpretation, privileges cannot be given based off of race.
“Schools that admit students on the basis of race run afoul of the Constitution…Chief Justice Roberts is correct in saying that true equality demands race-blind policies. But the route to racial balance is better pursued by parental choice and fair school policies than by granting entitlements to one group over another.”
• This is further explaining the need for equal opportunity not only in society but in the courtroom as well.
• This side recognizes that racial segregation is a huge issue, however, believes that racial balancing presents a problem that fixes the initial issue, but presents another one, leading them to look at other possible solutions.
Part III: Give a possible ulterior motive(s) for each side
• With any major decision made by the Supreme Court, especially regarding an overturn, ulterior motives are revealed that the opposing side references hoping to push away support from the opposing view.
• The argument that racial balancing efforts are constitutional and needed most likely has a politically charged motive behind the decision.
o It should be highlighted that the cause could be seen a skewed left suggesting a liberal yield supporting racial balancing. Initiatives that lean toward the liberal side of the spectrum are presumed to align with the Democratic Party.
o Since the mid to late 1930s with party realignment and the New Deal African Americans and other minority groups have typically voted and supported the Democratic Party. Most minority groups are in favor of the benefits of racial balancing to create a level playing field, meaning that Democrats will strongly support racial balancing in order to please a large majority of their voters.
o Initiatives of this caliber and criteria are important to minority communities, which obviously makes the correlation to being important to the Democratic Party as a whole.
• On the opposition, the argument that fights to find a different solution to segregation with ignoring racial balancing also has ulterior motives, but with more of a personal morality concern.
o Blatant racism can be seen as the clearest component. Those who support the oppositions have a lot of pride for their own culture, causing them to become nationalistic feeling superiority over minority communities pushing for racial balancing.
o Morally, it is argued that it becomes unconstitutional to offer benefits to a group due to race. While it can be seen as a positive, it is argued that this discrimination still would be considered to be just camouflaging the problem.
Bringing up the question of does reverse racism exist? The group arguing the issues with racial balancing would say yes, following up to say that by demeriting white people, it doesn’t help minorities it just hurts another group.
o The more neutral sector of this side of the argument would say that there is simply no issue to address.
This is backed by a “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality. This could be defined by these people coming to terms and [Understanding] the world is not fair, and [being] OK with that. They do not resent the success of others. This is not a problem that affects the majority so it is not something that needs to be addressed by the government.
The ideals of working for what you have is a grand American value that a lot of people agree with, giving it a political charge as well similarly to those who support racial balancing. Voters support candidates who support their ideals, as I was saying earlier. Same works this way. People who have a pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality will probably support this position, hoping that the party who aligns here will also have similar opinions on other topics. Typically the Republican party and other conservative groups will lobby to silence a conversation about racial balancing by creating a lack of importance around it. Therefore, rubbing that feeling of this being a topic to sit on the back burner off on the majority of the American public.
Part IV: State and explain your position
I whole-heartedly agree that racial balancing and constitutional policies protecting this are important to building a cohesive and competently conscious society. After analyzing and researching about racial balancing I have come to the conclusion that racial balancing is imperative in order to obtain cohesive co-existence in multi-ethnic schools and workplaces. I am someone who deeply believes in programs similar to affirmative action. The reasoning behind this is because, without them, people like me are pushed into those underprivileged positions I warned about in parts one and two. As a minority student, I know how privileged I am to be in the position I am and would hope that this would be offered to anyone in my position. I have to assume minority students will not have the same opportunities and would not be awarded similar higher education experiences as the majority. When it comes to universities they now grant minority students a separate selection pool, this causes the minority to not be forgotten in the shadows and have the same opportunities and advantages as a student who is considered as a majority.
I believe affirmative action is not only needed, in order to ensure equality, but it also ensures diversity. Some may argue that it is not constitutional, but we can look at Grutter v. Bollinger, a Supreme Court case that looked at the constitutionality of affirmative action. The Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan’s selection process regarding racial preferences. In the cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admission is constitutional if it treats race as one factor among many, its purpose is to achieve a diverse class, and it does not substitute for individualized review of applicant, but is unconstitutional if it automatically increases an applicant's chances over others simply because of his or her race. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed that the university’s admission system promoted diversity and inclusion amongst state public institutions, backing to condemn the admissions system and reiterated that keeping diversity present in higher education is a compelling interest of our society as a whole.”
Immediate change benefits stem from this as well. Like I previously mentioned campus diversity is important. It introduces students to a culturally charged environment overall bettering us as citizens. The ruling of Grutter v. Bollinger encourages that collaboration of different cultures needed to be ethnically cohesive as one has to be in the real world. Studies show that diversity is a key to good collaboration. Each day our society becomes more and more diverse; we meet more people daily and each one brings a new perspective about something into our lives. People everywhere have different opinions and ideas that we might never have thought of. Our lives are filled with people, each with different backgrounds and experiences, who we interact with every day. Diversity shows itself peeking out from the corner in many different ways: race, sexuality, culture, values, religion, gender, and an abundance of other ways. Diversity has not always been welcomed with open arms, but more and more we see people opening their minds to others' ideas. Allowing diversity into our educational systems and workplaces is how we find out all the vivid ideas out there in the world. This is cultural competency and it is how we learn more about the world around us. By exploring other ideas, beliefs, and lifestyles with an open mind, we open ourselves to exercise creativity and problem solving by looking at things from other lenses. And by allowing racial balancing we ensure that we will forever be able to do so. If we only listen to our own close-minded, personal view about the world, we will never understand worlds outside our own.
With the rulings of Supreme Court cases including Brown v. Board of Education, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Racial balancing is needed and through plans like affirmative action, it is legal to ensure that equal opportunity is available and yielded through all walks of life. There are other systems to promote racial balancing other than busing and affirmative action. These two happen to be the most popular and the acknowledged. And in no way do I presume all acts of racial balancing are constitutional and fair. However, I would argue that with the history surrounding what it is to be a minority in the United States it is important to acknowledge that things were not fair and right in the past and focus on temporary fixes until a feasible impermeable solution is compromised.
Part V: Explain more about your position
Personally, my lenience of supporting these racial balancing programs has a lot to do with my own personal background. I am from Pinehurst, NC. If you knew anything about Pinehurst you’d know about golf, and how close Pinehurst holds it to its heart. You’d know that when you google our town, pictures of the toughest courses come up. You’d know how we host the Men’s Golf U.S. Open every four years. You’d know how pissed everyone was in 2010 when Florida was named the golf capital while we got Nascar. But none of this would tell you about me. Personally, I have only stepped foot on the golf course behind my house to go sledding and I’m not the slightest bit familiar with any of the rules and equipment that accompanies the sport. I’ve never held a driver, and have only been on golf carts at the beach; however, I would say my time spent in dear Pinehurst, presented a game itself with some of the toughest life course choices I have seen thus far.
Pinehurst is a very conservative town. Our county has no clue what the color blue even looks like. Being moderately liberal, you can accurately assume how many debates I have gotten into over political issues. Taxes, abortion, the death penalty etc. Coming from a family who has always encouraged free thought as well as the extreme use of my first amendment right. When I finally got into politics, I knew Pinehurst was not where I wanted to call home in my adult life. Surrounded by Republicans, I was often met with backlash and grew tired quick, making want to keep my political views in a box restricted to the home. My parents are socially liberal for the most part, but fiscally conservative, and with them being as outspoken as me surrounding policy, I sometimes felt like I was fighting my battle there as well.
Moving to the D.C. area, and being on a college campus in general, has really presented a different scenario for me. Diversity flourishes at Mason. When I spew out a liberal ideal or wear a planned parenthood t-shirt, I don’t get looks that resemble someone going over par. I am greeted by like minds or at least people who are willing to talk about where we differ with stances in a respectful and intelligent manner.
Being from Pinehurst really shows me the small town perspective and has taught me so much, obviously not about golf, but about myself. Which is why I value diverse learning environments so much. Going back to towns similar to Pinehurst I see aspects of what I want for myself in the future. Whether it be home-like things or the complete opposite. And while it might not be that beautiful green lawn in my backyard, it’s good to know I always have that to go back to. However, the contrast of Mason allows me to fully dedicate myself to see the good in being able to call two polar opposites “home.”
Part VI: Be a reluctant advocate for the other side
From the opposing view, the constitution is colorblind. To advocate for the opposition the desire to eliminate racial balancing programs should be attacked from the constitutional initiative. The Fourteenth Amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I would argue that the constitution guarantees each citizen has the right to be protected from any law that may invade or overstep their opportunity to succeed within any means of society. I would argue that every person should have the same opportunities, therefore legal privileges should not be given based off of race. Continuing the opposition I would argue that racial balancing programs no longer even the playing field within our current society. There are many instances where race is acknowledged and nature takes its course to raise those who deserve it.
Finally, with the opposition, I would point out that there is a strong argument suggesting that percentages of minorities attending predominantly white institutions have not increased by much, but the percentage of white students attending historically black colleges and/or universities. Showing that the majority is making strides to promote diversity and integrations in ways that minorities are not. It comes down to the fact that it will always be the individual's option and integration can be offered, but cannot exactly be forced.