I was just on CNN discussing the decision in Schuette v. BAMN, reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and declaring that the citizens of Michigan have the constitutional authority to prohibit racial and other preferences in university admissions. We addressed this case this term in my Supreme Court class and the students voted not only in the same way as the majority today but predicted this result. What was surprising was the vote — 6-2. Only Justice Sotomayor and Ginsberg voted to upheld the Sixth Circuit.
This is clearly a breakthrough decision for those who have opposed racial and other preferences in admissions. In the past, these issues have inevitably ended up in the courts as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. Now, the Supreme Court is saying overwhelmingly that citizens can make these decisions for themselves. It creates a clear avenue by which affirmative action could be curtailed by direct action of the voters — bringing clarity that many have sought for decades of conflicted judicial rulings. Seven states have similar rules but this decision is likely to encourage others to follow suit.
Justice Kennedy wrote the main decision, which limited the political-process line of cases represented by Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. Kennedy stressed that “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” In the view of the majority “[t]here is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters. . . Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”
Justice Scalia wanted to go even further and get rid of much of that jurisprudence. However, this decision is potentially sweeping enough for most of the justices. Chief Justice Roberts and Alito joined Kennedy though Roberts filed a concurring opinion. Thomas joined with Scalia in his concurrence in arguing to go all the way in gutting the political-process line of cases. Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment while Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented. Justice Kagan probably would have joined in that dissent but recused herself. Even with Kagan however the vote would still have been lopsided at 6-3. Instead, it stands at 6-2. That is a sharp departure from the historically razor thin margins in cases like Grutter, Gratz, and others.
Sotomayor wrote a 58 page dissent (longer than all of the other opinions combined) and objected that the Court needed to limit voters because “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.”
At 58 pages, Sotomayor’s dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.
In our vote, the Supreme Court seminar voted 11-4 in favor of reversing the Sixth Circuit and 11-4 in predicting that that “other Supreme Court” would also reverse. The United States Supreme Court (while producing multiple opinions) proved less ideologically divided in the outcome than the Sixth Circuit. On the lower court decision upholding the dismissal of the action, the eight judges in the majority were nominees by Democratic presidents while the seven judges in dissent were appointed by Republican presidents.
Here is the opinion.
Karen,
Bundy’s “Negro” remark is all over the net. Oddly, I see nothing from Fox.
I’m sure their news division will get around to it. I mean that seriously.
The better test is if that video shows up on any of their opinion shows. The distinction (opinion) is very important. Fox constantly makes that distinction when under fire for some outrageous charges they have made. Their opinion shows are the ones that draw the most viewers.
I don’t have a television but I sure am interested in knowing if Hannity, Megan, or their other big hitters play that video tonight. Would you mind letting us know?
Paul,
Did the excerpt from that article claim that Head Start “cures” special ed? I’ll re-post the last paragraph of that excerpt from the Reuters Head Start article for you:
“Building on this work, Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago documented that cost savings to society because of reduced special education needs and less grade repetition, as well as the benefits to society from children’s adult contributions, likely more than repay investments in Head Start.”
Dredd – this is going to come as a shock to you but Bush I was term limited by the US Constitution and Barry Goldwater retired.
Bush I was term limited? He only served one term as president and lost the next election. Idiot that they are.
This article is a little later and probably from a liberally accepted paper. If you read carefully you will notice the excuses being made for a variety of results.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/05/does-head-start-work-for-kids-the-bottom-line/
Heritage, a reliable source? Not!
Elaine – “cost savings to society because of reduced special education needs”
Karen, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ongoing improvements to an social program. However I don’t buy the notion that it has not been working. What would’ve happened to these preschoolers without early intervention at all?
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/05/hhs-withholding-findings-on-head-start-effectiveness/
The problem with Head Start could just be the public school system. If the system is substandard, then any gains experienced in preschool would evaporate.
Karen S
Dredd:
You statements seem deeply prejudiced against millions of conservatives.
…
=====================
Just deeply prejudiced against the deeply prejudiced ones.
I don’t care if it is one or one million or one billion.
I do not like dipshits.
I do like what real conservatives were aware of:
A 60-person Federal Advisory Committee (The “National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee” or NCADAC) produces a climate change report every few years.
The report’s focus was mandated by legislation of the U.S. Congress, and was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.
So why did you conservatives get rid of Barry and Bush I who were conservative of human life?
I know you did it temperately, but killing them softly with your words is still killing them off.
You Oil-Qaeda loving T-baggers should not call yourselves conservatives because it is not true.
Does Head Start work?
By Yasmina Vinci
December 27, 2012
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/27/does-head-start-work/
Excerpt:
Is this near five-decade commitment to give every child an opportunity to succeed in life worth the money? At a time when the federal government faces difficult fiscal choices, the question is appropriate. Many expected the Department of Health and Human Services’ Head Start Impact Study, which was released on Friday, to provide definitive answers.
As it turns out, those expectations were overblown. While the study documented children’s significant gains at the end of the Head Start experience and the flattening benefits of Head Start attendance at the end of third grade, it did not examine a range of factors that could have contributed to the losses and cannot predict whether Head Start children may yet show outcomes into adulthood. A wealth of other studies address these questions and document Head Start’s long-term effectiveness.
One question the HHS study does answer definitively is whether Head Start does its job. The program gets at-risk children ready for kindergarten in every aspect the study measured. After one year in Head Start, children showed gains in vocabulary, letter-word identification, mathematics and social-emotional development compared with peers. In addition, parents involved with the program used more appropriate discipline and spent more time engaging in literacy activities with their children.
These findings affirm the Head Start model in design and in practice. Head Start’s success over the decades has been built on evidence-based practices. The model, informed by programs like the Perry Preschool, an influential project that tracked children for decades, is constantly adapting ‑ using the best available science and teaching techniques to meet the needs of local communities…
Head Start programs offer an ideal laboratory for the study of effective child development and learning. HSS funds extensive research every year on Head Start and Early Head Start. Current projects include studying social-emotional curriculum supports, teacher coaching practices for professional development and analyzing the learning profiles of children with limited English proficiency. This research reinvigorates Head Start’s practices, ensuring that programs meet children’s needs by creating a deep understanding of how students learn and what supports healthy development.
This work helps further Head Start’s efforts to provide comprehensive services and family engagement. Children in Head Start/Early Head Start programs enter with serious socio-economic disadvantages that can hold them back for life. The program works to serve the most at-risk children, including those who are disabled, homeless or living in extreme poverty. It also enables families to advocate for their children by including them in program governance and ensuring that children and their families have access to education, housing, healthcare, nutrition and other support services.
The goal is to prepare children for success in kindergarten, extend outcomes beyond the classroom and contribute to overall preparedness for life.
That Head Start prepares children for kindergarten is clear from the findings of the HHS study. There also is overwhelming evidence, from hundreds of studies over four decades, that Head Start children benefit from the program throughout their lives.
Head Start graduates are more likely to finish high school and go on to college, research by David Deming of Harvard University showed. They are also more likely to be in good health as adults and less likely to be arrested.
Building on this work, Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago documented that cost savings to society because of reduced special education needs and less grade repetition, as well as the benefits to society from children’s adult contributions, likely more than repay investments in Head Start.
A brief tutorial on the beloved Head Start. It was started by LBJ as part of his War on Poverty. And, as we know, the poor lost that war. There were doubts about it’s efficacy for a long time, but since it was a feel good program, no one wanted to touch it. When Clinton “Ended welfare as we know it” he wanted to know what programs worked and what ones didn’t. He appointed Think Tank people, professor, sociologists to create a longitudinal study. One of those people was Russ Whitehurst from the Brooking Institute. If you go to the Brookings website[left to centrist] you can see Whitehurst’s analysis of this study in a piece he wrote in January 2010. Cutting to the chase, he states “Head Start showed no demonstrable improvement in academics, socioeconomic, or health. Those are the 3 fundamental issues Head Start was supposed to impact. It’s almost 50 years and HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars. That’s serious cash. And for those of us who pay taxes, we probably all worked a year in taxes or more for that failure.
Elaine – that is awful about Bundy. As I said before, his comments will make him radioactive to most of his supporters.
I think he chose a poor way to express his frustration with the BLM, and has no legal leg to stand on. I sympathize with ranchers. But I don’t condone racism. He just turned his whole argument away from federal land ownership and ranching, and made it about his personal failings.
Dredd – you did get a new Bartlett’s didn’t you? 🙂
When Moby Dick came out it was not well thought of, And we are not talking of early education, we are talking of a specific program, Head Start and its effectiveness. Even the best defenders have to qualify their answers and say that Head Start needs to change to make it more effective. There is a lot of rationalizing going on about Head Start.
There are good aspects about Head Start, such as encouraging parental involvement, as you stated. But if it has zero effect by the 3rd grade, then we need to try something else. Take the good from HS, and combine it with models of successful programs.
We might need different programs in different areas – rural, urban, suburban – each area will have different challenges and gaps.
One of my mottos is, “If something isn’t working, don’t keep throwing money at it. Try something else. If that doesn’t work, keep at it until you succeed.”
I feel very strongly that we need to improve education. And studies say that HS is not getting it done. I want results more than my good intentions!
I don’t care if they still call it Head Start, but the program needs a change. I think the problem is the entire public school system, frankly. But the status quo doesn’t cut it.
feynman
I don’t know that I agree with Karen @ 12:53, but I think it is a very temperate comment. Sorry, Dredd.
…
===============
No need to be sorry.
Temperate erroneous shilling is no better than intemperate erroneous shilling.
Focus on the millions that are being murdered NOW and remember the kids killed on the drunken ship, the ferry.
Then remember that even mass murderers can say true things to lead you where they want you to go: “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” – Joseph Stalin
They know how you think, how you don’t think, and therefore how to manipulate you.
Annie:
I completely agree with you that parental involvement can really help a child’s early education. That is why single motherhood is such a risk factor for kids dropping out of school and/or going to jail. I love after-school programs that give kids that extra help when they can’t get it at home.
Not every child wins the parent lottery. There are so many problems – bad parenting, alcoholism, drug abuse, but the foster care system is awful. It is also a huge risk factor for incarceration.
I like investigating all the programs out there that are intended to help kids academically, and find what works and what doesn’t. And there are a lot of programs out there. I want THOSE to be the model!
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/303797060/one-approach-to-head-start-to-help-kids-help-their-parents
How Head Start helps gets parents involved.
Hi Feynman:
The rancher is responsible for the maintenance of the property, and the BLM is supposed to coordinate with them over herd size. If the land is specifically a grazing resource (like a logging resource) then it is intended to be used for grazing, and more damage to the landscape is permitted. Historically, bison herds numbered in the millions, and their grazing lands evolved with them. Other lands used for grazing are more delicate and prone to damage. It depends on the local ecology.
Other areas where ranchers butt heads, so to speak, are over bison, deer, wolves, cougars, and mustangs. They are trying to run a business, but it is ideal if they can find a mutually beneficial conservative approach. For instance, before you shoot any wolf or cougar that preys on calves, try other options. I learned that burros have an innate hatred for wolves and coyotes, and will drive them off on sight. They are often mixed in with cattle herds as “watch burros.” Lately beef got a hard hit, including drought, though, and there are many message sites filled with unsocialized donkeys looking for homes as herds diminished or went bust.
I recall visiting a friend’s Longhorn Cattle Ranch and was petting some sweet mini donkeys. They got incensed when they saw my dog, but they can absolutely be socialized with dogs.
There was a recent dustup over bison leaving Yellowstone and wandering into grazing land. They can transmit Brucellosis to cattle. Although the risk is small, it can put someone out of business if it happens. To prevent ranchers from shooting the wild bison, volunteer wranglers ride out and herd them back to Yellowstone. It’s pretty tough to make a huge bison with migratory instincts to stay put.
OMG! Thank you, Elaine! I looked for something and couldn’t find it..
And a big thank you to Mr. Spinelli for supplying his usual edifying comment.
And I look forward to his posting a study that shows early education is an enormous waste of money. ….Reminds me of a book I read…..Moby Dick… and how there are much better ways to spend money.