- U.S. Navy to start giving gay couples marriage benefits in Japan
- Sen. Harry Reid goes to hospital as a precaution
- Fla.’s Trey Radel exits rehab, ‘excited’ to resume congressional role
- U.S. nuclear general boozed it up, chased ‘hot women’ in Russia: report
- 45 Calif. students at one school test positive for tuberculosis exposure
- Rob Ford on women: Give them cash ‘and they are happy’
- Ku Klux Klan group holds recruitment meeting in Maryland
- Airport assassination: Mayor, 3 others killed at Manila airport
- Tea party-type lawmakers take mysterious, off-books trip to Mideast
- North Korea warns South: We’ll attack ‘without warning’
Memoir of race, busing and abuses
Question of the Day
When the U. S. Supreme Court announced its decree on the schools in the Seattle/Louisville matter, I wrote, with mixed feelings, to a friend:
“At least we all agree that it is intolerable that race should be a disadvantage to anyone; the quarrel is whether it should ever be an advantage, or at least a means to relieve a presumed disadvantage.
“My brain is of the conviction that race should never be a permissible category in the distribution of benefits and burdens; my heart tells me that the pretense of purist colorblindness can lead to an erosion of the distinct gains we’ve made (with some losses) since Brown.”
That’s the abstract and impersonal way we react to important Supreme Court decisions. But my thoughts ran back to 1971, when the court’s Charlotte-Mecklenburg decision obliged the school board in Greensboro, N.C. (where I was then living and writing) to abandon its “freedom of choice” plan and begin a massive cross-busing experiment.
That revolutionary change stirred turbulent cross-currents. It seemed to us our duty at the Greensboro Daily News (I was editorial page editor) was to support the school board, which faced a judicial mandate. The new policy, featuring extensive cross-busing, was unpopular with the board’s white constituency.
“Neighborhood schools” became the slogan du jour, but these Carolina school districts were not miniature Bostons, where the onus of racial experiment could be imposed on unfashionable parts of town. If the busing plan were to work, every school in the city had to share the pain, which meant having very nearly the same “racial balance.”
The difficulties of compliance with the court were made no easier to swallow by President Richard Nixon’s oratory against “busing,” which offered the unhappy parents of younger school-age children all the more reason to be angry over a policy they were helpless to dodge, reverse or modify.
But beyond all this there were, for me, two unusual personal dramas, one instigated by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger himself, who had signed the Charlotte-Mecklenburg decision for the court, which was then still trying to preserve the unanimity of the precedent Brown decisions of 1954 and 1955.
But he did grasp what it meant? My father, who seldom resorted to profanity in serious matters minced no words when he phoned early one morning while the schools controversy was on the boil.
“Sonny, did you see what that [expletive] Burger said?” he asked. It took me a moment to focus. Burger had fired a bench memorandum at the U.S. Middle District Court, which had jurisdiction over the Greensboro and neighboring Winston-Salem cases. Specifically, he had reprimanded Judge Eugene Gordon for allegedly exceeding the Charlotte-Mecklenburg precedent in a busing plan for the Winston-Salem-Forsyth schools.
Like Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Winston-Salem-Forsyth was a consolidated city-county system. Its plan called for transporting children countywide, including the Interstate-40 corridor that bisected the city of Winston-Salem.
It was evident Chief Justice Burger (not celebrated for acuteness) had failed to grasp the implications of the opinion he himself had signed.
Eugene Gordon, the judge Burger had publicly chastised, was a former student of my father’s, of whom he was deeply fond. And my father was nothing if not loyal. I don’t recall now whether my father urged me to write but write I did and not mildly about Burger’s impertinent intervention.
My colleague Jonathan Yardley, a close and conscientious student of the race question, had already written several stinging editorials about Nixon’s abdication of responsibility. Now Burger shared our editorial spotlight, and this did not further endear the Daily News‘ editorial policies to readers who failed to see why we didn’t join Nixon and Burger and jeer from the sidelines at this madcap “social engineering.”
By Michael P. Orsi
Edward Snowden should declare his patriotism in court
- Huge backlash mounts over suspension of 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson
- Deportations under Obama plunged to just 1 percent last year
- Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.
- Citing 'unfair system,' Obama commutes sentences for 8 crack offenders
- Sen. Harry Reid goes to hospital as a precaution
- TARGET credit card theft swells to 40 million victims
- EDITORIAL: Red faces at the White House
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Obamacare 'pajamas boy' gets roundly mocked
- Special ops vets slam military benefit cuts
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Southern Fried Politics from the Lens of a Persian-American Millennial
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Paul Rondeau exposes the propaganda, media tricks, and government policies that undermine our families, faith, freedom…and even life itself
Implement these actionable tips, how-to’s and best practices in 10 minutes or less to leverage online communications and technology for brand, business and career development.
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow