Desegregation: Does the end justify the means?

An article in the BBC reports that the Supreme Court has just narrowly decided that the race of a student cannot be a factor in determining where they are to attend school. Stemming from affirmative action plans in Louisville and Seattle, the case was brought by white parents whose children were denied entry to their public school of choice because of racial quotas.

Opposition to the desegregation programs was not one sided, either. Parents of black students also expressed frustration at seeing their kids shipped all over the city according to where quotas of black students needed to be filled, rather than to their local school. One mother is quoted saying: "I prefer to have my kid go to a school for poor black people across the street rather than spend hours on a bus to go to a school for poor white people on the other side of town."

So what does this ruling imply in the light of open interdistrict choice, a current hot topic in education reform? The choice to transfer out of district is generally seen to be a liberating and valuable option to poor, minority, inner city students whose dismal local schools are sabotaging their life chances. However, studies on open interdistrict choice policies in Massachusetts and Minnesota , among others, have shown that it actually increases social stratification, with white students significantly overrepresented in the percentage of students who utilize the option. Also, the already underperforming schools that lose students lose money as well. The results? Schools increasingly divided along the lines of race and quality.

Although the repercussions of this ruling combined with the growing popularity of interdistrict choice policies may exacerbate inequalities in education, I cannot bring myself to disagree with the ruling. You cannot fix inequality with inequality. We must not be telling children that they can't attend their school of choice because of their race, be they white or black, no matter how admirable our intentions are; in this case, the end doesn’t justify the means.

This case also brings to light an issue that needs to be addressed: Do choice and equality run counter to one another in education? And if so, how can policy address this under the shadow of the Constitution and this recent ruling?