Background
Two cases have been the driving force in court-ordered desegregation of school districts: Brown v. Board of Education1Brown v. Topeka Board of Education 347 U.S. 483, 493 and Green v. County School Board.2Green v. County School Board 391 U.S. 430, 438-39 In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation of school districts was unconstitutional. In Green v. County School Board, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts have a responsibility to take corrective action:
…the Supreme Court in Green v. County School Board75 made clear for the first time that it did not suffice constitutionally for a school or district to "throw its doors open" to Blacks and Whites on a facially neutral basis.76 Overturning decrees permitting freedom-of-choice plans, the Supreme Court ruled that previously segregated school districts must adopt or be ordered to adopt plans that "`so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the future.'"77 The Court insisted, and a year later took steps, finally, to insure that districts voluntarily or compulsorily adopted such plans "now,"78 "forthwith,"79 and "immediately."80 The Court also held for the first time that such plans must discharge an "affirmative duty"81 on the part of the desegregating districts (1) to take effective steps to eliminate the "vestiges" of prior discrimination,82 and (2) to refrain from any action, however benignly or neutrally motivated, that has the effect of maintaining or increasing the degree of racial segregation in schools.83
In the following decade, ...the Supreme Court insisted that desegregation plans achieve "the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation."87 The Court issued and upheld "all-out desegregation"88 decrees that effectively defined "desegregation" as "integration" and mandated student attendance techniques - for example, rezoning, the pairing and clustering of schools, and busing - that lead to the actual and extensive mixing of races in most or all schools.893Liebman, James S., Desegregation Politics: "All-Out" Desegregation Explained, p. 1477 Columbia Law Review, Vol. 90, Number 6, Oct. 1990.
In these cases the Supreme Court defined what constituted actively removing the vestiges of segregation: "the actual and extensive mixing of races in most or all schools." This, in turn, decided the goal of school desegregation programs: artificial integration of schools, i.e. creating racially balanced schools even when population patterns still reflect racial segregation.
Now the Supreme Court has acted upon another case which will have a far-reaching effect on school desegregation efforts, Dowell v. Oklahoma Board of Education. In the Oklahoma City case, the school district had implemented a court-ordered busing plan in 1972. In 1985, the school district began phasing out busing. As a result, "The elementary schools quickly began to resegregate along neighborhood lines, with more than half becoming all-Black or all-White."4New York Times, Jan 16, 1991
The decision to end the busing program was upheld by the U.S. District Court, which held "...that the school district had nonetheless met the terms of the original desegregation decree, and that the residential patterns were a result of private choice and not a legacy of segregation."5Ibid. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, citing a 1932 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Swift & Company, "which held that a Federal Court injunction must remain in effect unless `new and unforeseen conditions' had created a `grievous wrong' that compelled the lifting of the injunction."6Ibid.
The Supreme Court, in turn, found this standard too strict. In the words of Chief Justice Rehnquist "school desegregation decrees `are not intended to operate in perpetuity.'"7Ibid. The Court then held out the possibility that desegregation plans could be brought to an end: "The proper questions for the lower court were `whether the board had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination had been eliminated to the extend practicable.'"8Ibid. In a footnote, the Supreme Court instructed "the district court to make a new determination as to whether housing patterns in Oklahoma City were a vestige of official segregation."9Ibid.
The Oklahoma City Case is important for two reasons. Although the Supreme Court did not clearly indicate that busing could be ended in Oklahoma City, it did indicate that busing was not meant to be a permanent remedy, and that it would end at some point in the future. Thus the Court has also opened the door to ending busing in other desegregation cases around the country. More importantly, the Oklahoma City case shows that artificial integration does not necessarily have a lasting effect; despite twelve years of busing, artificial integration was unable to remove "root and branch" the vestiges of past segregation.
Across the country, busing has failed to eliminate the vestiges of segregation, because currently segregated schools are a result of segregated housing. Housing reflects an economic disparity; Blacks are still concentrated disproportionately at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. Education should be the primary tool to end this disparity, since it is the element best able to provide economic opportunity. The Oklahoma City desegregation program was unable to achieve meaningful, long-term integration because it was not able to give Black children the education they needed to rise in socio-economic class.
The failure of busing and its inability to extend educational opportunities to minority students is most starkly apparent in our inner cities. Minorities are still concentrated primarily in inner-city urban areas. If busing programs were having an effect, we would see a reversal of the urban decay which blights the vast majority of our large cities. We would see decreasing poverty, crime and drop-out rates. All of these factors should have been affected by increasing educational opportunities. And yet we have seen no improvement.
The situation in St. Louis illustrates the failure of busing. The court-ordered busing plan for St. Louis has been in effect for five years. In that time, some improvement should have been manifested in urban conditions. Yet no improvement is apparent. In 1987 49% of the students enrolled in the school district were receiving AFDC support. In 1989, 51% of the children were in the AFDC program.10Facts Sheet – St. Louis School District 51% of the students who entered the ninth grade will not graduate.11Ibid. The population of the city is 47.5% Black. Yet 88.7% of the murder victims were Black.12St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 30, 1991 Last year there were 177 homicides in the St. Louis area. As of September 5 of 1991, there were 170, most of the victims being black males in the City of St. Louis.13St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 4, 1991 By almost every available standard, the desegregation programs have failed to improve the lives of minorities living in the City of St. Louis.
We can only wonder what the long-term effects of the desegregation programs in St. Louis will be. Eventually, the Supreme Court will decide the St. Louis School District has done everything possible. It will declare the district unitary, and release the state from its financial obligation. Without the (approximately) 100 million dollars received each year from the state, the program will collapse; the voluntary transfer program in St. Louis will come to an end. Will the program have made a difference? Will educational opportunities have been equalized, and lasting integration have been achieved? Almost certainly not. Minorities will still be concentrated in a decaying inner-city, living with perpetual poverty and with an escalating crime rate.
Next: An Alternative