Comments on Open Letter from Seattle to The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann

I search in vain here for a sign that any of the "thoughtful school board candidates" has a top priority of improving instructional quality in our schools. That's the real "real issue", not "identity politics" or the "criminality" of recruiting legal adults to volunteer for the military.

PH @1, maybe that's because the post was specifically about the Supreme Court's racial tiebreaker decision and the candidates' responses to that particular issue?

Josh--A great post, with the exception of one part:

...candidates like adamant identity politics lefty Maria Ramirez, who believes a predominantly black high school in Seattle’s south end is failing because it’s facing a conspiracy of racism and greed...

I know Maria, having worked with her on a variety of issues over several months and years. She does care about equity; she does believe that "institutionalized racism" is holding many Seattle children of color back; but this has never approached the level of "conspiracy". In fact, one of institutionalized racism's defining features is that it's not conscious or conspiratorial, but the consequence of the intangible power structures.

But I digress. Maria has vast amounts of experience, both on issues like racism and poverty, and, most importantly, in traditional settings like PTAs and Site Councils. She chaired the site council at West Seattle High School, for example. Her opponent has almost no public school involvement to speak of, and seems like a lightweight at candidate forums.

Hope your description isn't a sign of things to come, Josh.

Don't worry, Tyler, we can always depend on Josh to default to glib, superficial labels like "adamant identity politics lefty."

I am very pleasantly surprised at the quality of this post and I urge you, Josh, to expand it into an article. You might also want to read the Supreme Court decision to determine for yourself if any of the candidates really has any idea what it says, whether it is mere "awful historical symbolism” or not. (Personally I don't know the significance of the case — I haven't read it — but as someone else wrote, maybe the emphasis should be on good education rather than "correcting the disparity between races...")

Josh: It's true that none of the school board candidates is calling for busing, or "forced integration", if you want to call it that. But neither is Lemann.

The Supreme Court using a not very effective desegregation policy as a pretense for disallowing the consideration of race in public policy is NOT mere symbolism. Being prohibited from taking race into account when dealing with issues of social inequality means trying to undo the effects of decades of racial discrimination in housing, employment, and education without any explicit goal for reducing racial disparities in wealth or power.

If the symbolism you're referring to is "diversity", as opposed to your sense of the real issue being class, then you're essentially agreeing with how Thomas and Scalia are reading the 14th Ammendment. And you're also ignoring the fact that affirmative action and busing began in the 1970s, after it was clear that the War on Poverty, which did attempt to produce racial equality through economic redistribution, was pretty much dead. We've had forty years of social welfare rollbacks since the War on Poverty, no thanks to the DLC. So yeah, specific timetables and goals for desegregation weren't perfect. But they were more than attempts at "diversity," and they were better than nothing, which is just about what we're left with right now.

“Supreme Court Renames Self, Resegregates

There was a party atmosphere at the end of the Supreme Court's session yesterday. A jubilant rightwing majority, represented by Justice Alito, made three dramatic announcements concerning the future makeup and direction of the court:

A. Effective immediately the Supreme Court will be renamed the Supremacist Court of the United States. The vote was 5-4.

B. The first obligation of the Supremacist Court declared Justice Alito was resegregation. A colorblind Court should never elevate jurists to its bench simply by reason of their color. Since Justice Thomas had undeniably been nominated by George Bush Sr. because of his race to fill the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall and to dare the Democrats to reject him after their rejection of Robert Bork, he should be removed forthwith from the bench.

Justice Thomas fully concurred citing 'extensive and incontrovertible evidence' that the Framers' 'original intent' had been an all-white all-male Court. "The idea that a black man can sit on this bench purely by virtue of his race is beyond outrageous - it is laughable. Imagine the Framers' condoning such an absurdity..."

In reply Justice Alito thanked Justice Thomas for his 'extraordinary sacrifice for true conservatism' pointing out that the new 'original intent' precedent which required removing him, would also require removing Justice Ginsburg. Over her heated objections the Court then voted 5-4 to remove Justice Ginsburg from the Court. When order was restored, the court proceeded to vote 5-3 to remove Justice Thomas, with Justice Thomas voting for his own removal.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-hendra/supreme-court-renames-sel_b_54477.html

I dunno, it seems to me that Seattle's schools administration puts out a lot of BS about summer vacation being racist, etc. They work themselves into knots trying to looking for ways in which they might be racist. They are way into making excuses. The only way black kids can overcome the effects of slavery and Jim Crow is a whole lot of extra work.

It's like getting run over by a bus. It's not your fault, and even if someone else pays for it, nobody can do the physical therapy for you. It sucks but the alternative is staying in the wheelchair forever. Blaming the bus, while truthful, won't help.

Blaming "institutional racism" isn't going to help. But how are you going to say "for a couple of generations black kids need to work harder so their community can catch up" without getting called racist?

Excellent post Josh.

However, you fail to mention that the supreme court decision was right on this one (and I am not a right winger).
The seattle school policy was a bad one and was definately discrimitory.

White/asian people who disagree, think about this.

Visualize that you had children, which I suspect many of you don't, but imagine you did. You don't make enough to send them to the Bush school, or lakeside. SO you have to stick them in public school. Research shows that the school right down your street is the best for what you think your child needs. You jump through all the hoops to assure s/he get's in. Only to be told that there is no room because your child is white/asian. Because of their ethnicity, they have to go to a different school. That different school doesn't perform to your standards and has problems that aren't being addressed.

Would you be so fast to declare that in the name of the undying virtue of "Diversity", your child should not have the best education that you could provide? Because of the color of your childs skin, should they be denied opportunity?

You may change your mind about whether or not you want your child to participate in a failing social experiment based on someone's misguided sense of what is racist.

Very good post. This is a serious issue and one, I think, that is too often hard to address squarely because of the anger and politics surrounding race and class disparities. If you read the Supreme Court's University of Michigan decisions on the use of race in higher education, the Court permitted a very narrow use of race, and only in the narrow circumstances existing in higher education. The Court, through Justice O'Connor, also said that even though it was constitutionally permissible it was not the best solution, and suggested that in the future, the Court would rule that it was time to put ANY use of race in higher education out to pasture.

Also, the Court had said in numerous other non-education decisions that governments cannot use race as a factor in making decisions for contracts or awarding employment. (Race can still be used to fill a pool of candidates, but it can't be used in the final selection.) So the Supreme Court's decision in the School District case was in one sense not surprising.

In one sense, one could understand perfectly what the Supreme Court is striving for -- a government that is race-blind. That is, after all, what the constitution (and the Civil Rights Act) in their own words require. The difficulty of course is, the words of the Constitution and the reality of society don't jibe very well. People do need a level playing field. How do we get there? So far it has been putting bandaids on the problem by using race after the playing field has been upended. If we can't use race, though, what do we do?

Interesting questions.

I kind of doubt The New Yorker cares what Josh Feit has to say...

Or you, #11. Meanie.

I thought this was one of your best posts, Josh. These comments in general are better than usual as well.

@11: When exactly did anyone pay the adequate redress you describe in your physical therapy metaphor? I missed that.

@8: When exactly did anyone pay the adequate redress you describe in your physical therapy metaphor? I missed that.

Damn! Double post error... Disregard the first (13)

Josh, YOU are the racist. To quote, "identity politics lefty Maria Ramirez"??? Identity politics? Is that the new term for Hispanic? Why don't you just shout out MEXICAN for Christs' sake?

Maria is hardly a leftist. While you praise the white liberal PTA leadership of Ms. Carr, you ignore the fact that Maria has led PTAs in 4 schools. Not sat on them, presided them. You praise the "even-keeled liberal" Steve Sundquist while ignoring Maria's long and steady hand working in schools to advance academic achievement for ALL students, not just poor ones.

Of course, Mr. Sundquist can afford to be even-keeled. It's easy when you earn millions of dollars managing hedge funds for rich people and are able to send your kids to private school. Oh, and then discover public schools once you decide to run for office. Oh, Mr. Sundquist will help the poor little black kids, the poverty striken Mexican kids, with his patronizing ways.

Give me a fucking break, Josh. How white are you? You seem to dwell on the color of the candidates' skin without any attention paid to what the candidates say.

Once again, you are fucking hypocrite, a hypocrite with a trust fund. Smoke another joint, Josh, and go munch on some real politics.

Maria Ramirez is so much more than an "identity politics" candiate, reflected in her endorsement by such white-guy institutions as the Teamsters and Operating Engineers. Maria managed to get supported by Democrats from Issaquah, Vashon, New Castle and Black Diamond at the King County Democrats. Identity my ass.

Josh Feit and the Stranger are racist. Clear and simple. Fucking privileged white kids leaning on wealthy parents to support their drug-laced writings.

Chump Change is a worthless dirty turd.

Throwing racism around to justify why your particular ethnic class doesn't excel at anything isn't valid social criticsm, its just lazy.

White is a color last time I checked. And it's a fine color. I gave up a long time ago apologizing for who I am.

If you are the mouth piece of racial equity, then you are right. We are not equal.

BTW, why should my children suffer so that yours can get into a school based on race? Answer: They shouldn't. I, nor my parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents never owned slaves, oppresed mexicans, or lynched jews. I refuse to sacrifice for any percieved wrong doing to people who weren't alive during slavery, or anything else.

What ever happened to working hard to overcome obstacles? I guess its been replaced by "gimmie gimmie gimmie..."

Ecce Homo AKA Dan Savage, are you now suggesting that all minorities are failures?
["Throwing racism around to justify why your particular ethnic class doesn't excel at anything"]

This kind of statement is patently offensive. Beyond the pale. So to speak.

At no point did I, or any of the candidates mentioned in Josh's original post, ever attempt to justify busing. In fact, it seems they all are against it in favor of strengthening neighborhood schools. One thing the rich white guys and the minority women want is to strengthen schools.

My objection, and it is mighty, is that Josh uses extraordinarily offensive statements, as do you. That is racist. To call Maria a "liberal identity politics candidate" when she is campaigning on an issue of "ALL kids achieving" can only be called out for what it is: racist. If Ms. Ramirez were a white candidate, like Ms. Carr, Josh would have slabbered praise for what she said, instead of minimizing her for the color of her skin. One can only wonder why Josh Feit is so focused on what Ms. Ramirez's ethnicity is instead of what she has to say.

Let's look at these facts about Seattle Public Schools: white students are the minority. Racial tie breakers were eliminated years ago. Busing is being phased out. School success eludes many minority students. School success eludes many poor kids, no matter what their race or ethnicity. Fewer than 7 in 10 students will complete high school. Most of those are non-white. The largest growing segment of Seattle School students, as is our population, are Latino.

Given these facts, it might be wise for the their publisher to not resort to racist phrases in their efforts to secure an all-white Seattle School Board.

I don't know how I feel about this whole thing...it reminds me of Boston, circa 1970-something, when they started busing. I wasn't around then, but my parents have talked about it. Their whole position was, hey, we're all for busing students from poor performing schools (usualy, minority students) to the good schools, but we don't want kids at the better school forced to go to the lousy one, because of race. I have to agree. So what is the solution? Well, surely making all schools good schools. Hmmm....

Oh, and DMS @5...those are my initals, are they yours too?

Hey, Josh:
Let's see how the shoe fits you.
So you are asked a question about the supreme court decision, and you say the Seattle plan was important for "symbolism" but it's time to move on? Huh?

First, what's the constitutional basis for a court to uphold something for symbolic reasons. That's a novel theory.

And this moving on stuff... were you aligned with those who told the Seattle School Board to refocus its energies on more pertinent matters like test scores in under-performing schools.

Why, Josh, you must be a racist!

Hypocrite.

Dianna @ 19,
This issue always comes back to Boston in the 70s. It's a horrible scar this country wears. It's like Birmingham '63 or Mississippi '64. Sad. Weird. Somehow beautiful ugly America.

Asking Josh a Question @ 20,
There is no constitutional basis for the SC to uphold something for symbolic reasons. That was sorta my point.

Chump Change @16,
I don't smoke pot. (Hate pot. It makes me nutty. It's for kids.) I don't have a trust fund. (I Wish I did.)

Way to go Josh!

I can't believe I agree with your analysis, but this one is pretty close to being right on!

My open letter to you Mr Feit- this is an article I wrote about the issue. It's long but expresses my take on it which obviously diverges from yours.

The Supreme Court decision will have no immediate impact on public schools seeking to diversify their student bodies- they’ll simply sidestep the ruling by abandoning the language of race, enacting diversity measures based on socio-economic status. However, the ruling carries symbolic power. The highest court of the land has decreed that race will not be recognized as a relevant factor in shaping admission policies in public schools, in effect further eroding the constitutional basis for diversity and affirmative action like programs. It is simply the latest blow against race-consciousness in America.

I will confess that I find the idea of a colorblind political and social order ideal- I would like nothing more that to do away with the destructive concept of race (sadly, evolutionary biologists seem to be heading in the opposite direction). But what rulings like this really do is obscure the fact that many Americans do believe in race, racism- institutional or otherwise- still exists, and desegregation is an unfinished project. The specter of Jim Crow was never vanquished, and one only need look at the funding differences between predominantly black public schools and those attended by predominantly white students to see that race still matters. Whether or not the concept is imaginary, its results are real enough to make it worthy of serious public discussion.

The Supreme Court assumes equality in the schools, but in truth, their ruling is nothing more than the reassertion of the “separate but equal” concept. Black students may fall behind in poor performing schools, but we’re reassured this has nothing to do with race or socio-economic status. According to many conservatives, the kind of people heralding the ruling, black Americans are falling behind by choice, as if anyone actually wants to fall behind. According to these same conservatives the end of Jim Crow was a smashing success and some time between then and now racism and segregation have disappeared. Now, black Americans are just whiners looking for a handout, crying racism anytime they don’t get their way.

These so-called colorblind pundits usually follow their critique of “black laziness” with an attack on what they think of as black culture: rap, bling, bitches, etc. News pundits on Fox News and CNN rail against the degeneracy of that culture, blaming it for the social ills faced by urban blacks, much in the same way that jazz and rock n’ roll were blamed for societal problems ranging from laziness to poverty to drug abuse and beyond, that is until white Americans embraced the genres and they became “legitimate” culture. The conservative cultural critics claim they want what’s best for black Americans, that it’s not their aesthetic value judgments that are racist, but black America itself that is self-hating, not to mention misogynistic, thuggish, and illiterate.

But as many economists or even Marxists will tell you, culture doesn’t create economic or political situations. Rap music didn’t create black poverty; white flight following civil rights victories, the gutting of the urban manufacturing centers, the introduction of crack cocaine, and the disproportionate incarceration of black males did. But in these simplistic, conservative, ostensibly neo-liberal times, such complex and multi-tiered analyses will not stand. Attacking black culture while ignoring real causation is de facto racism; such arguments cynically assume that blacks are “degenerating” on their own accord. Yes, black conservatives have also adopted this racist reasoning, but that does not automatically lend such views authority.

Does rap music convert affordable apartments into condos for yuppies? Does rap music crack down on blacks for crack while letting white businessmen off the hook for coke and weed? Does rap music keep inner city schools under funded or blacks out of decent schools? Does rap create the economic preconditions for crime? Leave it to the baby boomer conservatives to make the same old race music arguments, but this time in favor of rock music, now canonized and safe.

In some ways, Americans have embraced a kind of Brazilian outlook on race relations, their notion of “racial democracy” minus the existence of race. Officially, racism doesn’t exist in Brazil- the national myth holds that Brazil is a non-racist, all-enfranchising culture that reaches out to everyone regardless of their genetic background. Anti-discrimination laws don’t exist because “racism doesn’t exist.” But poll after poll, study after study reveals that most Brazilians do regard race as a factor, racist assumptions and stereotypes are widespread and discrimination is perfectly normal. But by perpetuating the idea that race isn’t a factor, Brazilians can simply shrug off the concept of racism.

As the U.S. continues to gut its own social safety net, place free market forces above human life, disproportionately incarcerate blacks, shred affirmative action, open the doors for discrimination, allow the forces of gentrification to drive black Americans out of their historic communities, and slowly overturn Brown vs. Board of Education, we too would like to appear colorblind. White Americans participate in a society that quietly marginalizes blacks, and then blames black culture for its own failures, a society that left the black community of New Orleans out to dry after Katrina and then wonders why they distrust the U.S. government.

The Civil Rights movement was derailed in the 1980s, when the first neo-cons and cultural-cons arrived on the scene, ready to ignore the white flight of the 1970s. They led the war on drugs, militarizing the ghettos, supported drug traffickers while busting black Americans in record numbers, blaming the disease carrier for the disease. AIDS, which hit the black community particularly hard, was simply ignored by Reagan and his handlers, and was allowed to take its toll on an already devastated community. Gang violence soared as the social safety net and steady employment dropped off the face of the earth.

It was in the dark decade of the 1980s that the first real battles against welfare and affirmative action began, culminating in the Clinton era neo-liberal “reforms” of the 1990s. The myth of the “black welfare mom” racialized largely white welfare dependency, lending racist credence to what amounted to the further reduction of the New Deal and the Great Society programs. Always open to a free market solution, Americans did nothing to stop white flight and industries from abandoning the inner cities, did nothing to bolster employment or make black aspirations viable, while making every effort to cut down on the few traces of security the black lower class could hold on to.

So the black underclass – the black middle class is a happier subject – did what it always did, escaping poverty through sports, music, and entertainment. And of course, their abundant cultural output fell under constant media scrutiny, both conservative and liberal - black rappers who talked about the inner city horrified their white listeners with supped up stories about what “ghetto life” had become. And all the factors that I mentioned above disappeared off the American radar, while media critics attacked the easiest target, rap music, even rap music that reflected the mainstream’s worst and most hollow desires, namely bling, cars, and cash money ho’s (all the accruements of capitalist success) .

I don’t want to be too simple. I admit that black Americans have agency and that sometimes the problems faced by individuals are their own fault. But the least America could do is acknowledge how long and hard the road for black Americans has been. Slavery and Jim Crow are not distant memories, far more recent than people care to admit- many white American commentators are incensed by the very idea of the United States government apologizing for slavery, in fact, they personalize the offense by claiming it would force whites to apologize, as though the government represents whites exclusively.

While the government maintains its laissez-faire course, the majority of Americans attempt to shirk their own responsibility as citizens to watch out for the less fortunate. Sadly, race relations are not moving forward, the “colorblind” policies pursued by many states as well as the federal government have not created a country of race neutral people. Most blacks and whites see themselves as independent communities, oftentimes in opposition to each other. When I stand at a bus stop in downtown Seattle, I don’t see racial harmony. I see scared or detached white people and ambivalent blacks. America is not moving forward; it’s backsliding into the barbaric world of racial fear and separation.

Obviously all that text I pasted doesn't neatly tie together with the fairly narrow subject discussed here, but it does explore some of the attitudes and assumptions underlying it, i.e. that diversity and affirmative action measures based on race are inherently misguided and corrupt and that the "real" problems with black Americans is the community itself- ideas that become more commonplace in "liberal bastions" like Seattle when Clinton permanently shifted the debate to the right.

Actually, come to think of it, my take only half diverges from yours.

"Asking Josh a Question @ 20,
There is no constitutional basis for the SC to uphold something for symbolic reasons. That was sorta my point."

Josh Feit, the strict constructionist. Alert the Bush White House. With a law degree, Feit can serve as a rightwinger.

Or is this just what happens when a feeble mind like Feit's wades into constitutional law?

Stick to jazz records when you're looking for stret cred, short guy.

Josh, The New Yorker deserves your respect. It's the only consistently sane and intelligent media source in our country. And it's the only mainstream magazine I'm aware of that has not once, at some point during the last 7years, fallen for the Cheney administration's bullshit.

But more importantly, what's with the "pot is for kids" comment? That's just false!

The post diminishing the importance of the nulling of Brown vs. Board of Education is, well, indicative of a paper that has no non-white non-male major editors. Is diversity too much to ask? Or is that "identity politics"?

Joshua @28: If you want the power to hire editors, you need to start your own newspaper.

Chump Change @16: Apparently Maria didn't impress anyone in her endorsement interview. That usually isn't the interviewer's fault.

All I know is incumbents did NOT have any easy time getting the KCDems endorsement or the 43rd this year.

Even Darlene.

And the non-incumbents for Seattle School Board got more applause both there and at the KCDems picnic this past Saturday.

Re: Ecce Homo's post:
"BTW, why should my children suffer so that yours can get into a school based on race? Answer: They shouldn't. I, nor my parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents never owned slaves, oppresed mexicans, or lynched jews. I refuse to sacrifice for any percieved wrong doing to people who weren't alive during slavery, or anything else.

What ever happened to working hard to overcome obstacles? I guess its been replaced by "gimmie gimmie gimmie..."

I completely disagree with this argument on multiple points. Regardless of whether or not your grandparents owned slaves, there are real inequalities existing in our world today. Every day. Everywhere. The argument that your ancestors somehow did not participate in it directly is completely irrelevant, and frankly - selfish. The responsibility of working to make our world more equal rests not on the shoulders of those whose great great great whatever owned slaves, but on the shoulders of every single citizen living and breathing in our world today. And do not fool yourself by thinking all inequalities stem from slavery, or some past injustice - these inequalities are reinvented daily (and alternately, lessened daily).

I understand the very real personal issue of seeing your white/asian child deprived of their first choice school due to the racial tiebreaker. However, the argument that you are sacrificing your child's education for some sort of reparation for slavery is completely ignorant. Inequality in education exists because of a myriad of inequalities; racial inequality cannot be simplified to slavery's legacy. That would relieve us of any sort of responsibility to affect change, which is ultimately where your argument leads: to the shirking of personal responsibility.

The idea of racial equality cannot be attained without strict attention to conscious diversity. While I do not agree with the racial tiebreaker policy, I also do not commend the SCOTUS decision. Inequality exists today, and its presence is neither because of or separate from slavery. We are dealing with an altogether different beast, and the burden to remedy this problem lies on all - black, white, mexican, jewish, asian, etc. - of us. We are clearly at the very beginning of a discussion that calls for creativity, personal responsibility, and compromise.

Re: Ecce Homo's post:
"BTW, why should my children suffer so that yours can get into a school based on race? Answer: They shouldn't. I, nor my parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents never owned slaves, oppresed mexicans, or lynched jews. I refuse to sacrifice for any percieved wrong doing to people who weren't alive during slavery, or anything else.

What ever happened to working hard to overcome obstacles? I guess its been replaced by "gimmie gimmie gimmie..."

I completely disagree with this argument on multiple points. Regardless of whether or not your grandparents owned slaves, there are real inequalities existing in our world today. Every day. Everywhere. The argument that your ancestors somehow did not participate in it directly is completely irrelevant, and frankly - selfish. The responsibility of working to make our world more equal rests not on the shoulders of those whose great great great whatever owned slaves, but on the shoulders of every single citizen living and breathing in our world today. And do not fool yourself by thinking all inequalities stem from slavery, or some past injustice - these inequalities are reinvented daily (and alternately, lessened daily).

I understand the very real personal issue of seeing your white/asian child deprived of their first choice school due to the racial tiebreaker. However, the argument that you are sacrificing your child's education for some sort of reparation for slavery is completely ignorant. Inequality in education exists because of a myriad of inequalities; racial inequality cannot be simplified to slavery's legacy. That would relieve us of any sort of responsibility to affect change, which is ultimately where your argument leads: to the shirking of personal responsibility.

The idea of racial equality cannot be attained without strict attention to conscious diversity. While I do not agree with the racial tiebreaker policy, I also do not commend the SCOTUS decision. Inequality exists today, and its presence is neither because of or separate from slavery. We are dealing with an altogether different beast, and the burden to remedy this problem lies on all - black, white, mexican, jewish, asian, etc. - of us. We are clearly at the very beginning of a discussion that calls for creativity, personal responsibility, and compromise.

And today we hear the Chief Justice is himself possibly about to die.

Let me see, it just keeps getting worse, will this make it even WORSE?