States and counties adopted many different plans to desegregate their schools. In 1965, the New Kent County school board adopted a "freedom-of-choice plan," which essentially allowed students in the rural, residentially integrated district to choose which of the two schools they wished to attend: the formerly all-black Watkins School or the formerly all-white New Kent School. After three years of the new plan, no whites had elected to attend Watkins and only 115 blacks attended New Kent. The black school children in this case contended that the "freedom-of-choice plan" in practice operated to perpetuate the racially segregated school system. It placed the burden of desegregation on the black children's shoulders.
If you were a Supreme Court justice, would you rule this "freedom-of-choice plan" constitutional? Explain.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think this is highly irresponsible. The school board, instead of trying to fight the de-segregation all together, is simply trying to ignore it by waffling away from their responsibilities. The burden of integrating schools can’t be placed on the shoulders of the schools attendees. For one, the one-sided integration which did take place is a problem. But more than that is this, if one student is victimized by another one based on his race and the school board gets in trouble, they can shirk the responsibility by saying “It was the student’s choice to attend this school, the fact that they happened to get beat up isn’t our problem”. I know that’s a stretch but it is a reasonable stretch. While the idea of the “Freedom of choice” plan sounds good in theory, it does ultimately come off as one last gasp at keeping the schools segregated.
Final Ruling: Not constitutional
Well, the “freedom of choice plan” went along the lines of the 14th amendment, it didn’t deprive citizens of their rights, yet the lack of enforcement was pretty unfair to the African-Americans. I believe the Caucasian children and their parents were sickeningly biased, but I can’t think of a way that it was non-constitutional.
I think that the "Freedom of Choice Plan" technically is constitutional, however not having enforced which schools students attended seems pretty unfair. Because the white kids can just continue going to their formally "white" school, and emotionally hurt the black kids who try to attend the formally "white" school. So, my ruling is that the "Freedom of Choice Plan" is constitutional, but I would like to say I think it is unfair.
I believe that, as a Supreme Court justice, I would rule that this law is cnstitutional. Forcing caucasian teens who discriminate against african-americans to attend school together will not change either group's feelings towards each-other.
The 14th Amendment protects citizens' liberty to choose which school they want to go to. It is not within the SCOTUS's power to decide whether a law should be enacted, only whether the law is in line with the Constitution, and this law clearly is.
This is a morally wrong decision that prolongs segregation based on precedent. Students that were brought up in a segregated society are not only going to be psychologically adjusted to that, but they are going to be under pressure from others as well. Such as their immediate family, friends, etc. I find it hard to believe that most students would just make the switch for the hell of it. I guess I would have to rule this decision constitutional as they found a clever loophole in the 13th Amendment. The law doesn't contain involuntary servitude nor does it deprive the students of their 14th Amendment rights. This was a bad idea in my opinion. It's honoring the "choice" part but it's leaning far towards a segregated one.
The "Freedom of Choice Plan" sounds constitutional to me. Considering that neither school was different and both were not segregated. Each race had the opportunity to go to the other but choose otherwise. No unfair rules are being enforced so there isn't any law being broken.
I think that the "Freedom of Choice" plan is not constitutional. Separate but Equal was declared unconsitutional and this plan kept the two schools the way they were and didn't change anything. They were still separate and therefore unequal.
Post a Comment