Tradition!

[Another day, another ever-so-enlightened column from the right-wing nutjob Jeff Jacoby. (If you've the stomach, you shoud read it to get the full impact of what follows.)]

[No, I'm not surprised Jacoby's against same-sex marriage. No, I'm not surprised he chose this historic weekend to write about it. What struck me (and delighted me in light of all those misguided churchmen who are just appalled by comparisons of the gay rights struggle to the civil rights struggles of the '50s and '60s) was how easy it was adapt just slightly the exact words of his bilious rant, and so offer...]

[If Jeff Jacoby Had Been Writing This Week In 1954:]

[This is the week that racial integration comes to Topeka’s schools, to the other school district-defendants in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and thus to the United States. The fundamental building block of civilization is about to undergo a radical change -- a change opposed by a majority of American adults. How did this happen? The mixing of white, black, brown, red and yellow American students may turn out to be the most consequential development of our lifetimes. How did we get here? The answer to that question has several parts.]

[At the most obvious level, the end of “separate-but-equal” is the doing of the justices of the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled in the Brown case that racial segregation in public schools infringes on equality protected by the United States Constitution. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the law, but this was no mere interpretation. It was a wholesale rewriting of the laws of many states and the District of Columbia.]

[In effect, Brown was a constitutional amendment dictated from the bench. So brazen an encroachment should have set off alarm bells. United States Supreme Court justices are unelected and unaccountable and always, therefore, a potential antidemocratic threat. When they overstep their bounds, they should be strenuously opposed.]

[But far from resisting the court's order, much of the political establishment and virtually all of the media embraced it. And that, too, is part of the reason why the timeless meaning of the races – and that their legal separation is best for society -- is now to be discarded in the United States.]

[The Brown Court knew it would have the support of the cultural elites, for whom individual autonomy and the pursuit of happiness often seem to be the highest social values. In the allegedly "progressive" mindset, which dominates what you read in the paper and see on TV, social traditions exist to be challenged, racial roles are highly flexible, and the mainstreaming of racial minorities is something only haters or fanatics could oppose.]

[No surprise, then, that the media depiction of the school integration issue has been strikingly one-sided. The views of those who favor it are often and prominently featured; their appeals to justice and compassion are repeatedly quoted, echoed, and expanded on. There has been a shower of celebratory coverage centered on the overturning of “separate but equal,” and upbeat descriptions of all sorts of related matters, from the likelihood of mixed-race marriage to the principle of “one person, one vote” have been widespread.]

[But there is rarely an admiring story about those who take a stand against throwing out the ancient relation between whites and non-whites. Rarely does the coverage suggest that they might have an argument worth listening to or an insight worth considering. Rarely do the feared negative consequences of racial integration get more than a fraction of the attention paid to its anticipated benefits. Hard to miss is the attitude that those who favor integration are enlightened, while those who don't are bigots.]

[But still another part of the answer to "How did we get here?" is that those who defend the traditional definition of racial separation have been woefully ineffective in making their case.]

[Preaching to the converted has its uses, but advocates for racial equality didn't move the cause of school integration from the fringe to the liberal mainstream by speaking only to those who already agreed with them. They made their case in terms that the unconvinced could understand too, and framed their radical proposal as an issue of civil rights and child welfare. Those are appealing arguments -- especially if they are infrequently rebutted. With so few leaders on the other side making an equally articulate case, it's not surprising that school integration advanced so far so fast.]

[Those of us who think this week's revolution is a terrible mistake need to do a much better job of explaining that the core question is not "Why shouldn't children of any race be able to attend any school?" but something more essential: "What is education for?" We need to convey that the fundamental purpose of education is to train tomorrow’s leaders so that they will continue the tradition of racial separation in the United States.]

[Segregated education expresses a public judgment that every child deserves the education best crafted to his place in society. Integrated schools, by contrast, say that the intellectual and emotional needs of children, and the long-term goal of erasing the natural superiority of the white race, count for more than the needs of traditional American social, political and economic values. Which message do we want the next generation to receive?]

[The integration debate doesn't end this week. Indeed, it may only now be starting in earnest. As Topeka goes, so goes the nation? That may depend on whether those who understand what education scaled to the “right” group is for, and why its central meaning has endured for centuries, can finally find the words to explain themselves to their countrymen.]

Previously Next