Suggested Reading for Competency-Challenged White Boys and Men Screwing Up the West Wing

At a time when white incompetent men and boys appear to have taken over the U.S. Government, it’s time to offer them some solid research that could help them get beyond laughing stock status—if they were not entirely convinced of white male supremacy.  

Today’s suggestion is by Professor Scott Page (University of Michigan).  Originally published in 2008, this new edition includes a new preface by Dr. Page. 

(Support local bookstores and give Amazon the finger by ordering from bookshop.org.)

The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies - New Edition

In this landmark book, Scott Page redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups--and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity--not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities.

The Difference reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and Page proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that cloud standard debates about diversity, he explains why difference beats out homogeneity, whether you're talking about citizens in a democracy or scientists in the laboratory. He examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems, and along the way offers fascinating and surprising examples, from the redesign of the Chicago "El" to the truth about where we store our ketchup.

Page changes the way we understand diversity--how to harness its untapped potential, how to understand and avoid its traps, and how we can leverage our differences for the benefit of all. (Source: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-difference-how-the-power-of-diversity-creates-better-groups-firms-schools-and-societies-new-edition-scott-page/8920038?ean=9780691271743&next=t&next=t)

Some review clips:

"Rather than ponder moral questions like, 'Why can't we all get along?' Dr. Page asks practical ones like, 'How can we all be more productive together?' The answer, he suggests, is in messy, creative organizations and environments with individuals from vastly different backgrounds and life experiences."---Claudia Dreifus, New York Times

"The Difference is brimming with so many intriguing insights and findings that I cannot do justice to them all."---Philip E. Tetlock, Science

"A fascinating and important book. . . . The Difference is a thought-provoking and stimulating read."---Diane Coyle, Business Economist

"[Page] redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups...and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity...not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities." ― Education Digest

"In The Difference, Page reveals how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and he proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that often clouds standard debates about diversity, Page explains why difference beats out homogeneity. And he examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems." ― Here is the City

"Page has written a book that offers a pragmatic defense of diversity practices, where having a diverse set of points of view in a group equates to better decision making. The book . . .illustrates the benefits of a different way of thinking about problem solving, providing people with conceptual tools to understand what lies behind some of the more popular treatments of topics and to reshape the public debate about the benefits and disadvantages of diversity."---Henry Farrell, Quality World

"The Difference is a very good book. I recommend it to all intelligent readers, especially to those who have not gone beyond the 'diversity' of political correctness. . . . Read this book."---Will Carrington Heath, Independent Review

"Though filled with three dimensional graphs, computer simulations, and other quantitative exercises that some will find intimidating, the book has the great advantage of being accessible to the nontechnical reader, at least one willing to invest considerable time and effort in following its clear but often complex reasoning. Where The Difference clearly succeeds is in bridging the gap between the more arcane technical literature found in the professional economics journals and writing intended for a general audience."---Russell K. Nieli, Academic Questions

Review

"Scott Page has brought to our attention a practically important proposition: diversity of viewpoints is of the greatest importance in solving the problems that face us individually and collectively. Diversity among a group of problem solvers is more important than individual excellence. Page's exposition remarkably combines lightness and breadth of knowledge with rigor and evidence."―Kenneth J. Arrow, Nobel Prize-winning economist

"Scott Page knows more about diversity than anyone anywhere. In The Difference, he shows why diversity matters, how it leads to better outcomes, and most importantly why achieving the significant benefits of diversity requires thinking well beyond traditional categories such as race, gender, or ethnicity. Knowledge of this book should be a litmus test for educators and diversity trainers―if you haven't read it, you are just talking metaphor. Stop playing defense and start playing offense by buying this book."―Bill Miller, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, Legg Mason Capital Management

"The book is brilliant. Page has a dazzling eclecticism."―Max Bazerman, Harvard Business School

"Does diversity trump ability when it comes to problem solving? Scott Page shows that the answer is, at least sometimes, yes. You'd do better to add more diversity of perspectives to your problem-solving team than to increase the average ability of individual team members. Diversity in both experience and identity can spark a group's creativity. Page pursues the logic of diversity and shows why and when hiring people who differ can lead to a better bottom line."―Ian Ayres, coauthor of Why Not? How to Use Everyday Ingenuity to Solve Problems Big and Small

High School Diversity Program in VA Safe For Now

 From the National Coalition on School Diversity:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NCSD and REEL Policy Clinic Issue Statement on SCOTUS Order in TJ Case

Washington, D.C. – February 20, 2024 – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released an order denying a petition to take up the Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board specialized school admissions case. The decision comes after multiple deliberations following a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the parent group challenging Virginia’s top-ranked public high school’s recently-adopted process for student placement. 

The National Coalition on School Diversity (NCSD) and Georgetown Law’s Racial Equity in Education Law and Policy Clinic (REEL Policy Clinic) commend the Supreme Court’s order given its implications for educational access, diversity, and equity. This decision to deny certiorari comes the same year Brown v. Board of Education turns 70, which at its core recognized that K-12 public education is about ensuring equitable access to high-quality education for all students. 

“Diversity in our nation’s schools is vital if we are to function as a multiracial democracy,” said Janel George, associate professor of law and director of the REEL Policy Clinic. “TJ has taken action to provide more children with access to its high-quality program, which is aligned with the goal of public education and with magnet schools historically.” 

Last May, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled to uphold the admissions policy for the selective-enrollment high school, finding that it had not discriminated against Asian American students as the plaintiffs alleged. One month later, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action at Harvard University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ruling that such admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

In crafting its colorblind rationale for the college admissions decision, the Supreme Court majority ignored the well-documented continuing impacts of systemic inequality and racial segregation in our nation’s public schools. Not only do schools remain deeply segregated by race and class, but students of color are more likely to attend underfunded and high-poverty schools with less effective instruction and reduced access to advanced coursework, extracurricular activities, and standardized testing preparation.

Within two months of the Supreme Court’s decision, the writ of certiorari was filed, asking the Court to declare that TJ’s pro-diversity admissions policy – which is explicitly race-neutral – violates the Equal Protection Clause. The changes to TJ’s process for student placement included 1) elimination of a standardized test, 2) establishment of new eligibility criteria (the top 1.5% of students at each public middle school who meet minimum standards); and 3) incorporation of a “holistic review of…students whose applications demonstrate enhanced merit.”

These changes aimed to acknowledge and help address the diminished educational opportunities, often correlated with a student’s race and socioeconomic background, due to long-standing and persistent systemic inequality. Following the murder of George Floyd and racial reckoning of 2020, the changes to TJ’s admissions policy can be seen as an attempt to provide a fairer chance for all students to access what is consistently ranked among the top ten best public high schools in the nation, according to U.S. News & World Report. 

While the plaintiffs alleged that the 2020 changes to TJ’s process for student placement were designed to reduce the proportion of Asian American students at the school, Asian American students still made up the majority of students admitted under the new policy. Of the students who received offers to attend TJ, 54.36% were Asian, 22.36% white, 11.27% Latino, and 7.9% Black. The first freshmen class included more low-income students, Black and Latino students, English-language learners, and girls than prior classes. Moreover, for the first time in over a decade, all 28 middle schools in Fairfax County sent students to TJ.

Although no formal explanation for the denial is given, Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, which focuses mostly on challenging the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning that there was insufficient “disparate impact” to violate the Equal Protection Clause.

“The fact that only two justices dissented from the denial of Cert is a good sign,” said Philip Tegeler, a legal advisor with NCSD. “It means that, at least for now, a significant majority of the court is unwilling to overturn the 2007 precedent that local school districts have the power, and the tools, to promote school diversity without selecting students on the basis of their race.” 

Given this reality, NCSD and the REEL Policy Clinic express appreciation for the Supreme Court’s denial of the appeal. We will continue to fight and strengthen our collective efforts to promote equal educational opportunity in our nation’s public schools and help ensure every young person has a fair shot at achieving their full potential.  

For media inquiries, please contact: Jenna Tomasello (jtomasello@prrac.org)

Founded in 2009, the National Coalition on School Diversity (NCSD) is a cross-sector network of 50+ national civil rights organizations, university-based research centers, and state and local coalitions working to expand support for school integration. NCSD supports its members in designing, enacting, implementing, and uplifting PK-12 public school integration policies and practices so we may build cross-race/class relationships, share power and resources, and co-create new realities.

The Racial Equity in Education Law and Policy Clinic (REEL Policy Clinic) centers its work on the intersections of education law, racial equity, and legislative advocacy. Student attorneys explore the origins of racial inequities in education and the role of law in entrenching or eliminating them. This work includes addressing issues that disproportionately impact the educational experiences and outcomes of students of color, including discriminatory school discipline practices, school segregation, resource inequities, and more.

U.S. ED Gives Billions More for Segregation Than Diversity

After incentivizing segregation with billions in spending for charter schools over the past 7 years, Obama's 2017 proposed budget gives a one-time pittance ($120 million) in comparison to encourage socioeconomic diversity in schools.

Part C of the new states rights version of ESEA "includes federal funding for charter schools, which would increase the annual commitment from $253 million in 2015 to $300 million by 2020."  All of that comes on top of the $157 million that Arne Duncan arranged as his parting gift to the charter industry last September.

Obama's Education Policy Stuck Between Coddling the Rich and Containing the Poor

The New York Times reports that Obama's Justice and Education Departments have jointly offered new guidance for interpreting recent racist decisions by conservative federal courts in ways that give colleges and universities wiggle room for efforts intended to increase diversity in higher education and K-12 populations.  That's the good news.  At the same time, Obama and Co. continue to stand squarely behind racist and classist accountablility and sorting systems that these same schools, colleges, and universities use to determine who gets into a real brick and mortar college, and who gets shoved into an online and for-profit diploma mill with open, really open, admissions.  

At this point, we must wonder, in fact, if any of recent efforts to rein in the Phoenixes and Kaplans from boiler room recruitment tactics will even survive the legal and lobbying resistance campaign by these newest billionaire capitalist ventures who prey on the poorest citizens while draining away federal money intended to help the poor get a college degree. Faced with an election system set up by the Roberts Court to assure governance by the highest bidder, legislators in Washington are waiting for their chance to become an honorary Phoenix by accepting cash to shut down any federal efforts to reform the most exploitative higher education education system ever devised.

And, yes, the Times reports that there's new advice, too, from Eric at Justice and Arne at ED on the K-12 front:

For kindergarten through 12th grade, the guidelines tell school districts that they can shape policies on locating schools, drawing attendance boundaries and governing student transfers to achieve a better racial mix. For example, a school district with two elementary schools with distinctly different demographics could consider making one school serve kindergarten through second grade and the other grades 3 to 5 in order to force a better mix. 

Really?  That's it?  Any funding for these "creative" solutions to the resegregation of American K-12 schools?

Not with the Gates, Broad, and Walton folks running ED.  Instead, we have hundreds of millions for seeding efforts to create more segregated charter schools programs based on total compliance pedagogy and constant testing, for providing federal support for segregated charter school building and real estate deals, for creating miseducative corporate cyber schools, and for increasing alternative certification programs that put the least prepared and least experienced teachers into the new corporate welfare charters that eat the poor.


On this last point, a new federal report this past week documents that "schools serving low-income students get less state and local money for teacher salaries than schools serving higher-income students."  That's an important find, but what is the Team Obama strategy for dealing with this disparity?  To encourage school systems to bring in Teach for America two-year temps and to pay TFA a $5,000 bonus for each minimally prepared teacher per year who must spend the first year learning to teach on poor people's children.

And so it is that we graduate from "Change We Can Believe In" to four years later, "Change Is."  Why is it that every time I say "change is" that it sounds just like "shit happens."

More on the Awakening in Wake County

From Facing South, "A Big Loss for Art Pope in NC School Resegregation Fight":

Voters in Wake County, N.C. have shifted political power on the local school board, ending a Republican majority backed by leading conservative benefactor Art Pope that worked to end the system's nationally recognized desegregation policy.

In the Nov. 8 runoff race that pitted incumbent Democrat Kevin Hill, a lifelong educator, against Republican Heather Losurdo, a stay-at-home mom and Tea Party activist, Hill won with just over 52% of the vote in the strongly Republican district. The runoff followed the Oct. 11 general election for the school board in which Democrats won outright four of the five seats that were up for grabs on the nine-member board, but in which Hill narrowly missed the 50% he needed to avoid a rematch with Losurdo, who led a field of three challengers.

It's unlikely that the board will reinstate the assignment policy scrapped by the GOP majority -- a policy that aimed to limit the number of children receiving free or reduced-price lunch in any one school through a combination of busing and magnet school programs. However, the Democrats on the board have expressed greater willingness to take steps to avoid high-poverty and racially-isolated schools than the Republicans, who have criticized such efforts as a "quota system."

The election results were cheered by Rev. William Barber, president of the N.C. NAACP, which filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights over the Republican majority's actions. That investigation is ongoing.

"The voices of parents, grandparents, teachers, students and community members rejected candidates who support regressive public policy that leads to resegregation of our public schools," Barber said in a statement. "Their commitment speaks clearly to the rest of North Carolina, but also to the national debate over public education reform, which must have diversity and resources at the center."

The Democratic resurgence was a reaction to the 2009 election, when Republicans gained control of the board in a strategy masterminded by Pope (in photo), a discount-retail mogul and a director of Americans for Prosperity, a corporate advocacy group founded and funded by the brothers behind the Koch Industries oil and chemical conglomerate. Like the Kochs, Pope has used his family's fortune to support a range of conservative causes, including school privatization.

Americans for Prosperity's North Carolina chapter was active in the 2009 school board race, carrying out voter education and volunteer work on behalf of Republican candidates. At the same time, Pope was the second-biggest contributor to the Republicans in that election, donating over $15,000 to the local party, which in turn spent most of the money on the school board race. A local GOP official acknowledged that Pope was the "architect" of the strategy to elect anti-diversity policy candidates.

Pope's money also played an important role in this year's hotly contested races. In the run-up to the October general election, Pope and his wife, Katherine, contributed $4,000 each -- the maximum allowed by law -- to three Republican candidates who wanted to end the diversity policy: challenger Donna Williams and current school board chair Ron Margiotta, both of whom lost, as well as Losurdo.

They then contributed another $4,000 each to Losurdo's runoff campaign. Last month, N.C. Board of Elections Director Gary Bartlett issued an opinion requested by the Northern Wake Republican Club finding that the runoff counts as a new election for campaign finance purposes.

In total, Losurdo raised more than $82,000 in campaign contributions, setting a new record for a Wake school board candidate, while Hill raised $42,000. But outside groups -- both conservative and liberal -- were also heavily involved, ratcheting up spending on the campaign to a mind-boggling $500,000.

One of the outside groups that was heavily involved in the election was Civitas Action, the political advocacy arm of the nonprofit Civitas Institute that is almost completely funded by Pope. The group characterized the staid Hill as a peace sign-flashing hippie stuck in the past. On the other side of the political spectrum, the independent groups Common Sense Matters and Progress NC hammered Losurdo for her Tea Party connections, a personal bankruptcy, exaggerating her responsibilities at a job servicing bank loans, and for a stint working in a New Orleans strip club, where Losurdo says she was just a cocktail waitress.

The new school board will be sworn in next month. Meanwhile, members of the accrediting organization for Wake County schools are scheduled to meet later this month with school officials and board members to review their actions to maintain accreditation. In response to a complaint filed by the NAACP last year, AdvancED investigated and placed the system under warning for what it called a lack of effective leadership and a "climate of uncertainty, suspicion and mistrust throughout the community."

(For more information about Art Pope, visit ArtPopeExposed.com.)

Arne Duncan Has Been to the Mountaintop--to See Which Way the Political Winds Are Blowing

With the Washington Post story finally blowing the lid off the racist scheming that is going on in Wake County to turn the social clock back by 50 years to the era of Jim Crow, Arne Duncan has finally come out of his spider hole to make a statement on how much he supports diversity in schools:

Thursday, January 13, 2011; 7:16 PM

America's strength has always been a function of its diversity, so it is troubling to see North Carolina's Wake County School Board taking steps to reverse a long-standing policy to promote racial diversity in its schools ["In N.C., a new battle on school integration," front page, Jan. 12]. The board's action has led to a complaint that has prompted an investigation by our Office for Civil Rights, but it should also prompt a conversation among educators, parents and students across America about our core values.

Those core values, embodied in our founding documents, subsequent amendments and court rulings, include equity and diversity in education and opportunity. In fact, on Monday we celebrate the life and leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose movement for racial equality inspired a nation and brought us closer to the more perfect union envisioned by our founders.

In an increasingly diverse society like ours, racial isolation is not a positive outcome for children of any color or background. School is where children learn to appreciate, respect and collaborate with people different from themselves. I respectfully urge school boards across America to fully consider the consequences before taking such action. This is no time to go backward.
Arne Duncan, Washington

WaPo gave Arne's letter the heading, "Maintaining Racial Diversity in Schools," to which Arne no doubt would nod his approval.  What the letter does, in fact, is to bring into stark contrast Arne's stated position on diversity in schools with his implemented policy to remove all caps and restrictions on apartheid charter schools, with no regard whatsoever to the segregative effects of these corporate welfare outfits that drain money away from public education--despite the fact that less than 20 percent of them demonstrate higher test scores than matched public schools. 

This is truly hypocrisy on a mind-boggling scale, just in time, nonetheless, for Dr. King's day of commemoration. 

How Segregation Cheats Learners

The 100 million dollar PR machine behind KIPP could almost make you forget that KIPPsters attend schools that are black enough to get a George Wallace seal of approval. 

I came across the work of Scott Page again this evening, and when I checked, I had somehow forgotten to post this interview article in the NYTimes back in 2008.  As the lunatic segregationists take center stage in politics, it is good to note that there is good science behind the argument for diversity.  But then, when did science matter to the Gang of Five in Wake County?

By CLAUDIA DREIFUS

In the long-running debate on affirmative action, Scott E. Page, a professor of complex systems, political science and economics at the University of Michigan, is a fresh voice.

His recently published book, “The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies” (Princeton University Press), uses mathematical modeling and case studies to show how variety in staffing produces organizational strength.

Rather than ponder moral questions like, “Why can’t we all get along?” Dr. Page asks practical ones like, “How can we all be more productive together?” The answer, he suggests, is in messy, creative organizations and environments with individuals from vastly different backgrounds and life experiences.
“New York City is the perfect example of diversity functioning well,” he said in an interview. “It’s an exciting place that produces lots of innovation and creativity. It’s not a coincidence that New York has so much energy and also so much diversity.”
An edited version of the interview and a subsequent phone conversation follow:
Q. In your book you posit that organizations made up of different types of people are more productive than homogenous ones. Why do you say that?
A. Because diverse groups of people bring to organizations more and different ways of seeing a problem and, thus, faster/better ways of solving it.
People from different backgrounds have varying ways of looking at problems, what I call “tools.” The sum of these tools is far more powerful in organizations with diversity than in ones where everyone has gone to the same schools, been trained in the same mold and thinks in almost identical ways.
The problems we face in the world are very complicated. Any one of us can get stuck. If we’re in an organization where everyone thinks in the same way, everyone will get stuck in the same place.
But if we have people with diverse tools, they’ll get stuck in different places. One person can do their best, and then someone else can come in and improve on it. There’s a lot of empirical data to show that diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, the most innovative companies are diverse.
Breakthroughs in science increasingly come from teams of bright, diverse people. That’s why interdisciplinary work is the biggest trend in scientific research.
Q. The term “diversity” has become a code word for inclusion of racial, ethnic and sexual minorities. Is that what you’re talking about?
A. I mean differences in how people think. Two people can look quite different and think similarly. Having said that, there’s certainly a lot of evidence that people’s identity groups — ethnic, racial, sexual, age — matter when it comes to diversity in thinking.
Here’s the bottom line: I myself am an affirmative action child. I got into the University of Michigan in the 1980s on a program. I’m from a rural part of Michigan. No calculus in high school. So I was given bonus points toward undergraduate admissions.
If the policy had been to consider mainly grades and SATs and not to make room for some geographic diversity, maybe I wouldn’t have gotten in.
Q. Give us an example of where diversity has improved an organization or profession?
A. I’ve seen it in my own field, economics. Before women got really involved in the 1970s, a lot of the actual labor of women wasn’t included in calculations of the gross domestic product. It was as if you had Ma Ingalls sitting around the Little House on the Prairie, eating bonbons, and only Pa Ingalls’s labor was counted in.
After you got women into the profession, they started saying: “What if Ma Ingalls opened up a business and charged for the cleaning, pie making, tending of the animals. Wouldn’t there be a lot of G.D.P. in there?”
When you only had men thinking about the economy, they were ignoring the productivity of half the population. By including the perspectives of females, the estimates got more accurate. This was important for looking at the American past and for understanding contemporary societies like those in Africa, where women are usually the farmers.
Q. In your book, you advocate affirmative action, an unpopular social policy these days. What’s your argument?
A. That it’s a flat-out good because, as I said earlier, it makes everything we do more powerful.
For a while, I chaired admissions in the graduate political science department at the University of Michigan. We didn’t just look at high test scores. We looked at things like whether an applicant had worked with Teach for America. We wanted to bring in people who had experiences and modes of thinking that would improve everyone else.
At a university, people learn from each other as well as their professors. Another suburban kid who was raised to score high on tests doesn’t add all that much to the mix.
Q. What’s your critique of standardized testing?
A. After a certain threshold, it doesn’t give you enough information. Anyone who scores above 600 on a Graduate Record Exam will probably do well in graduate school. But we were looking for future social science researchers. The ability to do innovative research requires creativity and originality, something the G.R.E. won’t predict.
Q. How do you know you’re right about diversity?
A. One of the things social scientists do is create math models to prove our theories. With Lu Hong — she’s an economist at Chicago’s Loyola University — I constructed a formal model that showed mathematically that diversity can trump ability, and also when it does.
Our models were similar to what people are doing to predict the financial markets and voting patterns, and our paper was published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
What the model showed was that diverse groups of problem solvers outperformed the groups of the best individuals at solving problems. The reason: the diverse groups got stuck less often than the smart individuals, who tended to think similarly.
The other thing we did was to show in mathematical terms how when making predictions, a group’s errors depend in equal parts on the ability of its members to predict and their diversity. This second theorem can be expressed as an equation: collective accuracy = average accuracy + diversity.

Come to Raleigh March 20-23

Will young people of North Carolina organize and march to save diversity in North Carolina public schools and the rest of the country? One important event is already planned for Saturday, March 20 at NC State:

. . . .Great Schools in Wake is hosting a forum at N.C. State University's McKimmon Center focused on a quality education for every child. The event Saturday, March 20 will run from 9 a.m. into the afternoon.

Registration opens at 8 a.m.

Just a few of the speakers include Dr. Gerald Grant the author of "Hope & Despair in the American City: Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh," Richard Kahlenberg, Century Foundation Senior Fellow, and Caroline Massengill the past president of Magnet Schools of America.. . .

Raleigh's Resegregationist School Board Majority Votes to End Economic Diversity Plan in Wake County

Richard Nixon got elected in 1968 by turning the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Apartheid, i. e., by embracing the social policies demanded by a segregationist South that was ready to even change political parties to protect the only social policy that mattered: separation of the races.

In a book that should be required reading in any educational history or policy course on American education, Gerald Grant recounts how Nixon and his White House thugs, Haldeman and Mitchell, instituted a segregationist and anti-busing litmus test for any judge to be considered for appointment to the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court.

This litmus test would be applied, of course, before any potential judge ever went before the lights of a Senate confirmation hearing. To get to the hearing, in fact, potential judges had to be on the side of school segregation and housing segregation. And if not for the White House taping system, we would never have the documentation to prove Nixon's active complicity to kill busing and to re-institute his version of Jim Crow America.

From Grant's book:

Nixon was making sure the he would not have to ask any nominee about his stand on busing, while directing Mitchell and key aides to apply that test to any potential appointment they brought to the president's desk. Because of the possible retirement of a second justice, Mitchell suggested to Nixon that he might make a "double play."

Nixon: Well, even then I don't want a liberal.
Mitchell: Oh no, no.
Nixon: I don't want a liberal.
Mitchell: Absolutely not.
Nixon: I jus feel so strongly about that, I mean, when I think what the busing decisions have done to the South, and what it could do with de facto busing [in the North].
Mitchell: I agree.

Before Mitchell left, Nixon underlined his instructions once again: "I want you to have a specific talk with whatever man you consider. And I have to have an absolute commitment from him on busing and integration. I really have to. Go out and tell 'em that we totally respect his right to do otherwise, but if he believes otherwise, I don't want to appoint him to the Court."

Nixon got the Court he wanted. The four justices he appointed--replacing liberal judges of the Warren Court, including Chief Justice Earl Warren himself, along with Abe Fortas, Hugo Black, and John Marshall Harlan--radically changed the direction of the U. S. Supreme Court and provided the majority to stop desegregation at the city line in the North. The Warren Court had ordered desegregation of city and suburbs in Charlotte in 1968, but Nixon's Court refused to do so in 1974 in Detroit (pp. 151-152).

The decision to strike down Detroit's desegregation plan, and thus seal the fate of desegregation efforts nationwide, was a 5-4 vote based on that new Nixon resegregationist Supreme Court majority.

Now almost 40 years later, it is another 5-4 vote by yet another purchased and screened majority (this time in Wake County, NC) that would seem to seal the fate of the most successful school diversity plan in the history of American public education. Where is Secretary Duncan on this, who has nothing but bad things to say about school boards that want to protect students and teachers? Any Duncan or Obama criticism of school boards out to protect racists?

The story here by the Charlotte Observer and below by the Raleigh Public Record:

By Will Huntsberry • Mar 3rd, 2010

Yesterday Wake County’s school board met amidst a packed house of supporters for Wake’s diversity policy and supporters for the new school board majority. The school board’s agenda for Tuesday received national coverage from the Associated Press and The New York Times because of the board majority’s intent to enact a resolution to end Wake’s diversity policy. The measure passed in a 5-4 vote.

Though, the new majority was elected by a vocal, well-funded faction of Wake County parents, supporters of the diversity policy toted the biggest signs at yesterday’s meeting. And they represented a majority of the voices during what’s become almost the standard 2-hour public comment period.

Photo by Will Huntsberry.

The board agenda listed the fiscal implications of the new neighborhood schools policy “to be determined.” Board member Keith Sutton requested that the vote on community schools be deemed “out of order” at this time on the grounds that its fiscal implications have yet to be presented. Another board member, Kevin Hill, asked for a “work session” on the matter before the vote.

36 of the 55 speakers spoke out in support of the Wake County diversity policy at yesterday’s meeting and one of those speakers was on the verge of being forced out by police.

Police almost ejected Curtis Gatewood of Granville County, right, from the meeting. Rev. William Barber of the North Carolina NAACP, center, intervened. Photo by Will Huntsberry.

Several other parents asked how equity could be achieved by uprooting current policy in a recession. Creating a majority of high poverty schools within the Beltline, as many think the neighborhood policy would achieve, would require additional funding to provide equal education in those areas.

This has lead many to deem the new policy “re-segregation” or a return to “separate but equal.”

Yesterday’s meeting reported a negative increase in county appropriations per student. The number went down this school year by $37 per student and in 2010-11 will go down another $63 per student.

The public comment session was cut short to proceed with the agenda, but not before one commenter was allowed to cede her two minutes at the podium to North Carolina NAACP President William Barber.

Barber spoke of “data and morality not supporting” the new school board majority’s direction and then asked the crowd to join “an old country preacher” in singing the hymn, “We Shall Overcome.” While the crowd sang, Barber resumed making his comments to the school board, asking why it wouldn’t allow the NAACP, “an expert on high poverty schools, 45 minutes to give a presentation to the board?” He answered, “it’s because you know you’re wrong.”

Before Dr. Barber stepped down over three-quarters of the room was standing after he asked for those in favor of Wake’s diversity policy to rise.

As a mix of snow, rain, and ice fell outside Wake County schools four-story building, the school board minority, lead by Carolyn Morrison, desperately sought for half an hour more time before a vote should take place. Finally, a last-ditch attempt to recess was voted down 5-4, as the audience nervously chuckled.

After the monumental vote took place, a large crowd gathered in the center of the room at the the urging of Rev. Barber. He lead the congested and tearful mass in chanting, “We’re not going anywhere! We’re not going anywhere!”

Wake County's Anti-Diversity Board Majority Ponder Superintendent's Resignation

Photo: TAKAAKI IWABU - tiwabu@newsobserver
What do you get when institutionalized racism at the national level intervenes to buy a school board in order to destroy the nation's most successful school integration and diversity program? Keep an eye on Wake County, NC, and you will see the perfect case study unfolding before our eyes.

One thing you can obviously get is a righteously indignant superintendent who is not afraid to challenge the anti-diversity racist majority on the Wake County School Board. From the News Observer:

RALEIGH Wake County Schools Superintendent Del Burns could be out of a job as soon as Tuesday following his public criticism this week of the new school board majority's agenda.

The board hastily scheduled a special closed-session meeting for Tuesday to discuss whether to remove Burns, who has accused the new majority of engaging in "partisan political gamesmanship." For about $100,000, school board members could approve a payout that would allow them to immediately remove Burns ahead of his announced June 30 resignation date.

"Historically, when have you heard the CEO of a company publicly undermining the authority of his board?" said Debra Goldman, vice chairwoman of the school board. "At this point, you need to look at cutting your losses."

But school board member Kevin Hill, of the board minority, said it would be a mistake to remove Burns so soon. A former teacher and principal, Hill worries what would happen without Burns at the helm of the administration.

"I would hate to lose his direction and guidance with the system before we have the opportunity to bring a new superintendent on board," Hill said Friday. "Even if we were not able to hire a new superintendent by June 30, that would give us time to bring in a well-qualified interim."

There's no deputy superintendent because Burns eliminated the position after he was named superintendent in 2006. Three of his most senior administrators who might be asked to fill in are Chief Area Superintendent Danny Barnes, Chief Academic Officer Donna Hargens and Chief Business Officer David Neter.

Relations fray quickly

The relationship between Burns and the new board majority has rapidly deteriorated since Tuesday, when Burns issued a stinging surprise resignation announcement. He said he could no longer work "in all good conscience" for the school district he has served for nearly 30 years. Soon after the announcement, board chairman Ron Margiotta said he would try to talk Burns out of resigning.

Things worsened Thursday as Burns explained his reasons for resigning in a series of media interviews. He said he disagreed with the direction of the board's new Republican-backed majority, which wants to end the school system's diversity policy in favor of neighborhood schools. Burns said that would lead to a system of rich and poor schools. . . .

Wake County Board Chair Chooses Jesse Helms Loyalist as Board Lawyer

(Photo by Ted Richardson of NewsObserver.com) With the new segregationists now holding a 5-4 majority on the Wake County School Board, Wake's long-standing and exemplary economic integration policy could be on the chopping block at tonight's Board meeting. Offering legal advice to the new majority will be GOP insider, Thomas Farr, who learned about civil rights at the knee of world-famous segregationist, Senator Jesse Helms. From NewsObserver.com:

RALEIGH The Wake County school board's choice of a prominent Republican lawyer to take a hard look at the school system's legal contracts and fees has ignited a wrangle about whether the move amounts to overt partisanship or just sound government practice.

The selection of Raleigh attorney Thomas Farr, a former nominee for a federal judgeship with strong GOP ties dating to the Jesse Helms organization, is just one matter of dispute between the board's ruling coalition and members who previously held sway. The new five-member majority, which received strong backing from the county Republican Party, favors killing the current policy of mandated socio-economic diversity in each school, as well as mandated year-round schools.

Board member Kevin Hill, ousted as chairman during a tumultuous Dec. 1 meeting, said naming Farr signals an excessive role for partisan politics on the officially nonpartisan school board. In addition, Hill said, the board should not have named Farr to the job without establishing his fee for the work.

"I do believe it doesn't look good for the board," Hill said. "He is closely identified with the Republican Party at the state level. His law firm has a minimum amount of experience with school law."

Board Chairman Ron Margiotta said Friday that he has not started negotiating money with Farr. The measure is up for renewed discussion at Tuesday's board meeting, which will also likely include a showdown between advocacy groups. State members of Americans for Prosperity say they'll rally support for the new board majority, while BiggerPicture4Wake and at least one other group have promised to show up in support of the existing diversity policy. . . .

And today the News & Observer published another story detailing Farr's involvement in a black voter intimidation scheme in 1990:

. . . .A 1992 U.S. Justice Department complaint said the Helms campaign sent postcards designed to intimidate tens of thousands of registered voters in heavily black districts during the 1990 U.S. Senate election. The complaint described Farr as a participant in meetings about the mailing and said he had been involved in earlier "ballot security" efforts.

However, Farr said on Monday that he had limited contact with campaign officials before the 1990 mailing and advised them not to send the postcards. His chief involvement was representing the defendants in negotiating a settlement with the Justice Department under which the defendants agreed to take no further actions to intimidate black voters, he said. . . .

The News & Oberver story also links Teabagger organizer and right wing hack, Art Pope, to the GOP strategy to win a majority of Wake County Board seats. Since when does a local school board election merit national attention by GOP wingnuts? Think about it:

. . . .Pope was credited by a local GOP party official with crafting strategies in an October election that earned school board seats for three Republican-backed candidates and landed an allied candidate, John Tedesco, in a runoff that he ultimately won. In an Oct. 7 e-mail from Wake County Republican Party finance chair Marc Scruggs to incumbent board member Ron Margiotta, Scruggs said the GOP had implemented Pope's plan and that it "worked very well."

The election resulted in the new members' and Margiotta's gaining a majority on the nine-member board, with the ability to advance their agenda, including ending the system's diversity policy and mandated year-round schools. Margiotta is now chairman of the school board. . . .