Category: Uncategorized

By Greg Moses

In its 1954 ruling against school segregation, the US Supreme Court made it the Constitutional business of the nation to care about the motivations of African American children.

Segregation, argued the court, was unfair to African American children, because the practice of separating blacks by law conveyed a sense that they were inferior to whites. And the sense of inferiority tended to damage a black child’s motivation to learn. On the basis of these particular considerations, the Court found that segregation was inherently unequal.

The wisdom of that ruling lies in its twin findings, that white superiority has effects worth fighting, and that a nation should be busy building institutions that encourage black children to learn, too.

De-segregation or integration was therefore prescribed by the Court as an antidote, because the larger effects of white superiority were deemed harmful to black children.

Fifty years later, if we wish to measure our progress by the criteria set forth in the text of the Brown decision; perhaps we should simply ask the broader questions. What have we done to counter the effects of white superiority and how have we re-organized our schools to serve the motivations of our African American children?

Has the black child today been liberated from the social effects of white superiority? Has the nation transformed its schools to uplift the black child’s motivational needs? I imagine several national responses to these questions, but I think that an honest report card would not place America’s efforts on the honor roll.

Overwhelmingly, I suspect these questions will mostly come as a surprise. You mean the Supreme Court was actually ruling against white superiority, in deference to a black child’s motivational needs? Not to “all children,” mind you, but to black children in particular, the Court was quite literally kneeling with sacred respect.

Where is that bronze statue? The Supreme Court Justice, in flowing robes kneeling to care, calling to black children, overtly, not embarrassed to be so publicly particular about the object of his (at the time) sacred concern? If we could carve that image and place it on the Washington mall, we would weep before it today.

Today, we have a mob of media images, chattering away about how any special attention paid to the needs of black children is simply a way of robbing (de-robing?) whites and catering to the black child’s “inferiority.” Reverse discrimination, special preferences, catering to minorities. These are the terms of chatter that would hum around our bronze monument were it set before our eyes in the marketplace of today’s ideas.

And where, for the past 50 years, have been the politicians who were brave enough to stand up and say, “I’m with the Supreme Court on this one. If elected I am going to get in the way of white superiority and kneel to the needs of the black child?” How many of us have demanded to hear that promise before we cast a vote?

But I don’t want to leave the impression that we have failed completely. National polls continue to show majority support for affirmative action “for blacks,” so long as the question is fairly put, without the loaded language of “preferences”, “special consideration”, or “quotas”. That is a fairly remarkable achievement for American public opinion given the money and mouth that has been put to work against affirmative action ever since it was first invented to enforce the moral dictates of integration, to fight against white power, and to respect the prerogatives of black citizens.

Yet even here, notice how the Supreme Court of 1954 was not embarrassed by its own “preferences” or “special consideration” of black children. If we have moved the Constitution since 1954, it seems we have moved it away from the great wisdom of Brown.

According to Pew Research, carefully asked questions about countering the effects of discrimination yield majority support for affirmative action, even among whites. But it surprised me to see that such questions drew the more positive responses from lower education levels. Hostility to affirmative action among whites tends to grow with education.

Contrary to stereotypes about prejudice and poor whites, more hostility can be found among whites who have “some college”, “upper income”, and who are “male.” Half of whites with High School education or below believe not only that affirmative action is good, but that it is also fair. In sum, the more elite the white person, apparently the more hostile he usually is to the principles of Brown. The data raises a question about the quality of leadership that is likely to come from white elites.

Of course, there is no one more elite than a US Supreme Court Justice. Which makes it all the more marvelous to recall how in 1954 the most privileged powers on earth opened a door that we have not yet dared to fully enter.

And finally, a focus on the broader questions of Brown leads us away from integration for integration’s sake, and away from traps that confuse integration with cultural assimilation. When we ask the questions, who is protecting black students from white power and catering to their motivational needs, we may very well answer black schools, black colleges, and black teachers. Only the most cynical strategist, therefore, would use the Brown principles to attack the very institutions and people who set the standards for black education. Neither do the standards set forth in Brown lend support to demoralizing agendas of “assimilation.”

To revisit the text of the Brown decision after 50 years is to read a record of unusually wise principles shamefully ignored or strategically misconstrued. There is nothing to prevent us from returning to that broader wisdom today.

***

This article was written in 2004 for Alternet, where an edited version appeared..

H.R.2638

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

For expenses for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology, $1,000,000,000 (reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000) (increased by $89,125,000), to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, $700,000,000 shall not be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security and submitted within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for a program to establish a security barrier along the borders of the United States of fencing and vehicle barriers, where practicable, and other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology, that–

(1) defines activities, milestones, and costs for implementing the program, including identification of the maximum investment related to the Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet) or successor contract, estimation of lifecycle costs, and description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures;

(2) demonstrates how activities will further the objectives of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), as defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan, and how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs;

(3) identifies funding and staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by activity;

(4) describes how the plan addresses security needs at the Northern Border and the ports of entry, including infrastructure, technology, design and operations requirements;

(5) reports on costs incurred, the activities completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border of the United States;

(6) includes an analysis by the Secretary, for each segment of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving operational control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;

(7) includes a certification by the Chief Procurement Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and that the SBI Program Office has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the SBI program, SBInet contract, and any related contracts, including the exercise of technical oversight, and a certification by the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the projects funded under this heading;

(8) complies with all applicable acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition management practices of the Federal Government;

(9) complies with the capital planning and investment control review requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;

(10) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and

(11) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office:

Provided further, That the Secretary shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives on program progress to date, and specific objectives to be achieved through the award of current and remaining task orders planned for the balance of available appropriations: (1) at least 30 days prior to the award of any task order requiring the obligation in excess of $100,000,000; and (2) prior to the award of a task order that would cause cumulative obligations to exceed 50 percent of the total amount appropriated: Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, not more than $2,000,000 shall be used to reimburse the Defense Acquisition University for the costs of conducting a review of the SBInet contract and determining how and whether the Department is employing the best procurement practices: Provided further, That none of the funds under this heading may be obligated for fencing or tactical infrastructure on lands administered by the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the Bureau of Land Management unless the Secretary of Homeland Security coordinates such decision with that agency, and makes every effort to minimize impacts on wildlife and natural resources: Provided further, That none of the funds under this heading may be obligated for a fencing or tactical infrastructure project or activity unless the Secretary formally consults with affected State and local communities to solicit their advice and support of such project or activity: Provided further, That no funds under this heading may be obligated for any project or activity for which the Secretary has exercised waiver authority pursuant to section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) until 15 days have elapsed from the date of the publication of the decision in the Federal Register.