Below is my column in the Hill on the opposition to the Supreme Court’s opinion declaring the use of race in admissions to be unconstitutional. The defiance expressed to the decision (and view of the majority of the public) could trigger a nuclear option in states that want to end decades of conflicts over the race-based admissions. It would be a major blow to the autonomy of universities, but administrators and faculty appear undeterred by the possibility of state intervention.
Here is the column:
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” With those words, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the historic decision to ban the use of race in college and university admissions.
This view has long been supported by the public, and polls suggest the decision was viewed favorably by most Americans, including a significant share of African Americans.
Long before the opinion was released, universities were already sensing that the use of race in admissions was coming to an end after decades of intense litigation. Some quietly formed teams to plan how they might evade such a ruling and continue to use race in admissions.
Under the preexisting standards for the use of race in admissions, schools spent decades assuring the courts that race was not being weighed heavily and had only marginal effects on admissions. However, after the ruling, schools declared that Black and Latino admissions would “plummet” if they were no longer permitted to use race as a criterion for admission.
Those arguments have deepened the distrust over how universities will adjust to the ruling in seeking to preserve current diversity numbers.
Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who previously called the conservative justices “partisan hacks,” was recently criticized for suggesting that he might be willing to lie about the weight given to race at this school. He told students: “I’ll give you an example from our law school, but if ever I’m deposed, I’m going to deny I said this to you. When we do faculty hiring, we’re quite conscious that diversity is important to us, and we say diversity is important, it’s fine to say that.”
Although Chemerinsky later insisted that he had been joking, the comments highlighted a concern that schools would be less than honest in manipulating reviews to achieve diversity goals.
Indeed, one of the earliest moves to blunt any constitutional ruling may have come from the former head of the California university system, Janet Napolitano. After citizens of one of the most liberal states in the union voted in 2020 to block affirmative action in education and hiring, Napolitano moved to drop the primary method used to expose racial preferences: standardized tests.
Before that, she had assembled a handpicked task force in 2019 to study the issue. But the task force found the opposite of what it had been designed to find. Standardized testing, it turned out, proved to be the single most accurate indicator of college performance, including for non-white students. Napolitano overrode those conclusions and ended the use of the standardized college tests anyway.
After this recent ruling, many universities denounced the Supreme Court and pledged to “reimagine” admissions. Medical schools are being encouraged “to pivot” in order to continue to reach diversity goals for entering classes. More schools are moving to dump objective standardized tests (or make them optional) in favor of more subjective scoring in order to shield racial criteria for admissions.
That has led many citizens to ask what can be done. After all, most people oppose such use of race in admissions. Even liberal states such as California and Michigan have made it unlawful by referendum. Now, the Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional as well. Yet most believe the fight will continue as schools creatively construct new pathways to accommodate racial discrimination.
In the academic echo chamber, these discussions are playing well with their audiences, but less so with the public. Worse yet, they assume that there is not much that can be done to thwart their efforts. They are wrong.
There is a nuclear option. This is for states to take over admissions in public higher education.
States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.
For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into “bands” based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.
Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.
There are obvious costs to such a system. Some students do not perform well on standardized tests. Others have particularly impressive background stories. It is possible to create a percentage of acceptances for such exceptional cases. However, they would be limited in number and require annual reporting on the specific exceptional findings. Laws could also limit the degree to which exceptional criteria can be used to increase a ranking by more than one or two bands.
Some schools would also likely want to allow greater differentials for one category of applicants: athletes. Some schools raise massive amounts of revenue through sporting programs such as football and basketball. They will likely insist on continuing to recruit students largely on the basis of their athletic rather than academic achievements. That is a long-standing debate, but the use of transparent, objective criteria will expose just how much of a “bump” such athletic ability is allowed in admissions.
When it comes to students, the state can assert an interest in protecting them from political, racial, or other bias. Taxpayers fund these schools to maintain higher education opportunities in their states. Academics often treat the taxpayers as an ATM with no voice on what their money is buying, even while creating openly hostile environments for conservative and libertarian viewpoints.
The choice remains with these schools as they openly plan new ways of weighing race. The frank discussion suggests that citizens are mere captive audiences, and that neither public polling nor Supreme Court precedent will change the policies. However, citizens can break the glass and take greater control over admissions if this defiance continues.
Moreover, such laws can expose long-concealed systems of bias in selection. Unlike many schools, like Harvard, that spent years withholding data, state schools could become completely transparent on the weight they have been giving to various criteria.
A state-mandated system would come at some cost. It would limit the value of non-academic achievements, though even that can be adjusted to allow variation, so long as exceptional “bumps” are recorded and disclosed.
A nuclear option could also face complications in some states, where school charters or statutes give schools control over admissions. However, while some states have dedicated funds that go to schools, most can decide how much money will go to higher education. Taxpayers are not a captive audience. They can condition funding on the adherence to objective and transparent admissions.
I hope that it does not come to such a showdown. But these defiant statements from administrators and academics just may trigger an equal determination in states to put an end to the use of race as an admissions criterion.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan: As a constitutional scholar this should have caught your attention. In his campaign around the country DJT has not spoken of what he would actually do to address important issues. It’s all about all the criminal charges that have brought against him–and those to come. Until now. DJT has now laid out his plans if he becomes No. 47. It is the wet dream of right-wing conservatives–the idea of a “unitary executive” in which the post-Watergate norms of an independent Justice Department would cease to exist.
DJT wants to alter the balance of power so the Chief Executive would have near total control of not only the DOJ but other independent agencies like the FCC and FTC–even the Federal Reserve. DJT wants the ability to “impound” funds allocated by Congress for programs he doesn’t like. And he wants to strip employment protections from career civil servants so he can fire anyone who is not sufficiently “loyal” to No. 47.
And DJT wants to scour the intelligence agencies to remove the “sick political class that hates our country”. Loyalty to the Great Leader, and him alone, will be the benchmark for working in DJT’s government. DJT’s plan has been laid out by Russell Vought, who ran the OMB under DJT: “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them”. In his words it’s a plan to totally eradicate what he, and MAGA Republicans, consider the “deep state”–the idea of eliminating the guardrails that protect our Democracy.
DJT’s plans would turn the Founders’ concept of separate and co-equal branches of government on its head. DJT’s plan is a prescription for an authoritarian state. As DJT said at a recent rally in Michigan: “We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists and Marxists and fascists and will throw out the sick political class that hates our country”. Except for the reference to “fascists” DJT’s words sound eerily familiar to the pronouncements of a guy in Germany back in the 1930s. His name was Adolf Hitler! And we know how that ended.
Now as a constitutional scholar what would James Madison have to say about DJT’s plan to claim unilateral and unlimited power? This is an important subject you should address but probably you will ignore. I hope you will not.
Sounds good to me. Drain the damned swamp and may the nyt and its adherents – commies, fascists, globalists, pedophiles, etc., can ROT.
If obama can fill the government with racists, political operatives, and incompetents, Trump can surely drain it of them.
Your dictator fantasy is laughable, but your fear is real…as it should be.
POLITICO
APRIL 4, 2013
“Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off a question Thursday about when he might leave the administration. Instead, the top lawman professed his allegiance to President Barack Obama.
“I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy. So we’ll see,” Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show.”
“DJT’s plan to claim unilateral and unlimited power?”
That’s funny, coming from the party with an Imperial presidency, with a Praetorian Guard that persecutes opponents and protects allies, that is on a smear campaign to kneecap SCOTUS, that has hordes of bureaucrats usurping the right to free speech.
Remove txpayer money. Privatize. Let customers choose their ideology.
Remove taxpayer money, Privatize, let customers choose their ideology.
How to increase ammunition production for the Ukraine War.
Biden said we will have increased production capacity for weapons.
Prolonged war?
Supply requires demand. Therefore demand is directed by the suppliers.
Part of a TV interview
“***The defense industry obviously wants*** to make sure that if they’re going to increase production, that that production rate is going to stay elevated ***for a period of time.*** Because that means hiring more workers, it means retooling and adding capacity in their factories and manufacturing capabilities. So we understand that and that’s sort of the central thesis here of the discussions that we’re having with them, is to get them to increase production and let them know that we’re serious about doing that for some period of time,” ___John Kirby In Biden’s NSC
‘Military Industrial Complex’ WARNING
There is so much about this mess in Ukraine that is disasterous.
This was an entirely avoidable war, and the blame for it false entirely on Biden and Democrats – on thier political stupidity, on their foreign policy on their idiotic energy policies.
But the war is no upon us. Our idiocy may have provoked or encourgaged Putin’s actions.
But ultimately he is still responsible.
I generally support the right of the Ukrainians to defend themselves. I do not require them to be pure as snow in order to do so.
I generally favor the US providing weapons to Ukraine.
But that support has limits – I DO NOT support the nuclear brinksmanship we have engaged in.
Further it si increasingly comming out that a deal was not only possible, but essentially in place over a year ago – and the US tanked it. Russias demands were that Ukraine agree to never join NATO.
I am fine with that.
I would note there is also much lemonade to be made of the mess in ukraine.
Ukraine is burning through huge inventories of obsolete US weapns that would have had to be disposed of otherwise.
I would still prefer no war.
I do not BTW care that US arms makers are profiting from the war. Good for them.
I do care that US politicains are making choices based on who profits. Bad for them.
And yes we are seeing the model of US war making for the next several decades.
Just as the US retrenched after Vietnam. We are seeing the same NOW after afghanistan and Iraq.
It is MOSTLY likely that the US will fight the most likely future conflicts much the same as we are doing in ukraine.
The artillary, the shells, the weapons that Ukraine is receiving are close to useless without US logistical, and intelligence support. – Both of which we can turn off in an instant.
Yes, I expect the US will continue to supply beligerants int he world with some of the weapons we are providing to Ukraine.
Knowing that a 155mm howitzer is just a big hunk of metal without shells and tareting, and there are few countries in the world capable of providing those.
Do you agree with Biden’s and Gloria Nulands and the NSC’s and 3 letters and our snipers for instance, overthrow of Ukraine in 2014 ? You do know Nuland testified and claimed 5 billion was spent to accomplish it, while the 20 Billion spent in Moscow to depose Putin didn’t work.
How is it we a USA whom on it’s own shores makes a grand worldwide whining spree about 100 thou spent in social media as interfering in an election by a foreign power, claims Putin got Trump installed, found exactly zero proof of that at all, then blatantly tosses entire elecvted government’s in black op stings and demands a POTUS type change in foreign nations as easily as it breathes ?
Supporting any part of the war in Ukraine is total blatant hypocrisy. Tell me what you disagree with.
Trying to address your claims.
It would help if you were clearer and more specific.
I am going to have to make some assumptions.
I do not support US efforts to compell Regime change anywhere in the world.
That has UNIVERSALLY worked unbelievably badly for the US.
Frankly from the founding through the present pretty much ALL activist foreign po;icy of the US has been a massive failure.
As a rule I think it is a mistake for any country to engagin in that type of meddling.
But the US has HISTORICALLY been the most inept country in the world at that.
Frankly with only a few exceptions US Foreign policy for 250 years has been Abysmally bad.
We pretty much SUCK at it.
So wither it is Hillary Clinton fomenting the Orange Revolution in Ukraine or the US installing the Shaw in Iran or assassinating Diem or ..
No I pretty much do not support much US foreign policy.
As to Putin meddling int he 2016 election – that is a laugh.
Regardless, every single claim regarding what Putin ALLEGEDLY did is NOT the business of the US or the FBI no matter what.
Should the Russians have hacked voting machines – that would be a task for the FBI.
But Thwarting alleged Russian bots posting really bad political cartoons on social media – no that is NOT the business of the FBI or US government.
One of the problems with those on the left is they define as criminal anything that politically opposes them.
Which is one of the reason that I frequently condemn those on the right ranting about Treason.
There are many REAL crimes that have been committed by those on the left. By democrats.
We should focus on REAL criminal conduct.
It is not in the interests of the right, independents, or the country to abusively broaden the law infinitely to cover political opposition.
The Left feels quite strongly that it must be allowed to racially discriminate against Asians and whites, and that black people cannot compete, in a racist lowering of expectations. That is the core of the entire argument.
How to increase ammunition production for the Ukraine War.
Biden said we will have increased production capacity for weapons.
Prolonged war?
Supply requires demand. Therefore demand is directed by the suppliers.
Part of a TV interview
“***The defense industry obviously wants*** to make sure that if they’re going to increase production, that that production rate is going to stay elevated ***for a period of time.*** Because that means hiring more workers, it means retooling and adding capacity in their factories and manufacturing capabilities. So we understand that and that’s sort of the central thesis here of the discussions that we’re having with them, is to get them to increase production and let them know that we’re serious about doing that for some period of time,” ___John Kirby In Biden’s NSC
‘Military Industrial Complex’ WARNING
You are looking at the american way fo fighting war for the next decade or too. This is our response to the disaster that was Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just as post Vietnam, we are again reluctant to send US soldiers to foreign countries to fight and die.
Instead we send weapons.
Yes, expect more of this.
For many reasons – this included you can expect a less stable world over the next couple of decades.
We are seeing a major political realignment globally. The US is significantly rolling back its roll in policing the world.
MOSTLY I think that is a good thing.
I understand your critique here – and I agree with alot of if.
But this is still preferable to more afghanistans and Iraqs
The truth is that this entity is horrible and, worst of all, a thief.
Such a wonderful idea to take the admissions decision out of the radicals hands. Might need to consider this option.
Anonymous is running around calling certain Scandinavian countries socialist.
He is ignorant and doesn’t know what socialism is.
Socialism: A command economy where the government controls production and distribution. They are not socialist.
Anonymous writes: “No. There are variations of socialism.”
That tells us that you are ignorant as to the definition of socialism.
Socialism: A command economy where the government controls production and distribution.
No, it tells us that you don’t know what you’re taking about.
Educate yourself. There are variations of socialism. The one you’re referring to is one of many variations. Obviously you didn’t know that.
Anonymous the Ignorant (ATI) writes: “Educate yourself. There are variations of socialism. “
Yes, there is more than one, but you are too ignorant to add the adjectives required. Even those adjectives don’t suffice because ignoramuses are continuously dumbing down our language. Additionally, you don’t know the history of the nations you talk about regarding the amount of government intervention. The “socialism” part failed,å and they reverted to a more market economy.
ATI ignorantly writes: “Glad you finally decided to educate yourself on the matter. There’s hope for you.”
I already know this stuff. You are bumbling around using inappropriate words, and forgetting the descriptive words. Even when you bumble onto the correct words, you don’t know what they mean. You are ignorant. You are Anonymous the Ignorant who is banned and whose responses are deleted. Just so you understand, your postings weren’t deleted for your ignorance. They were deleted for your incivility.
“I already know this stuff. You are bumbling around using inappropriate words, and forgetting the descriptive words.”
What inappropriate words? You’re the one who is having trouble comprehending grammar not I.
Incivility? Nothing I’ve said was uncivil. You are very confused.
Right wingers on this blog often label any counter argument to what they’re saying as being incivility.
“Right wingers on this blog often label any counter argument to what they’re saying as being incivility.”
ATI, foul language is incivility and you are known for foul language. That is likely why you were banned. You couldn’t stop and perhaps it is prevalent in the anonymous postings you write to others. Who wants to read all of your junk?
ATI writes: “What inappropriate words?”
ATI, the inability to form an argument with fact is a hallmark of your existence. You write post after post without saying anything except if it is wrong. You don’t know what a socialist is even though I defined it for you after you destroyed its meaning.
It’s starting to look as if you are almost the only one posting anonymously. In a way that is good because all can look at the anonymous posts and skip them.
You are irrelevant.
“Your accusation that I used inappropriate words are not supported by any evidence”
ATI. the evidence is that you were banned from the blog. The rest of the evidence was read by others and sent to their trash.
ATI likes to speak and say nothing: “ Huh? Democratic socialism has an adjective”
Yes, but you didn’t know to use the descriptive word “ democratic” or understand the difference between democratic socialism and socialism. Your knowledge is incomplete, but you are incomplete as a man as well. That is why you hate the restriction on sexualizing K-3 children
You didn’t know there were different variations of socialism. You insisted there’s only one. Then you changed your mind and started demanding adjectives for some crazy reason that makes no sense. I think you just realized I was correct and proceeded to insult me in order to cover up the shame of being so wrong and incomprehensible.
But there’s evidence that there is hope for you yet.
ATI writes: “You didn’t know there were different variations of socialism. You insisted there’s only one.”
Socialism is socialism. Democratic socialism is not socialism though it has certain ideas where the free market is impaired. The nations that are referred to as Democratic Socialism (not an intelligent way of defining their methods) are not command economies so they are not socialist. For the most part they are capitalists who previously were moving in the socialist direction but changed their ways which improved their economies.
You still don’t understand the real meanings behind the words. Why? Because you are Anonymous the Ignorant.
“Democratic socialism IS a form of socialism”
ATI, an ignorant person might say that, so you are in the company of those you belong with..
Democratic socialism is democratic socialism, and socialism is socialism.
Socialism: A command economy where the government controls production and distribution.
The Scandinavian countries people think of when they hear their ideology called democratic socialism are mostly nations whose economies did poorly, and moved partially away from the welfare state, becoming more capitalistic. Then their economies did a turnaround.
I don’t know if you fail to grasp the difference between the two because your intellect is low, you are developing dementia, or you are drunk all the time. I think you can appear more intelligent than you act, but you prefer to be seen as the blog idiot.
Admissions Czar Bomba
I am sorry, since the comment is irrelevant. I hope you’ll find something interesting here:
Possible volcanic winter, bunkers are useless, Cambridge proposes the global solution!
REGULAR drills & Earth lasers’ plasma shield not only can repel space electricity that provenly stimulates magma (Ebisuzaki, 2011) & dissolve storms (Univ. of Geneva), but it CAN also prevent chaos by a devastating global blackout/all nuclear plants’ blasting by asteroid explosion (as in Tunguska-1908 & Chelyabinsk-2013) or a solar storm hit! TWELVE times near-miss extinction so far: 1972, 1989, 1991, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 https://GlobalBlackoutPrevention.wordpress.com
So, this would be an ad?
Yeah, CME. Known about them for decades.
Get hit by one, civilization goes back to a weird mix of the stone age, the mid 1800s with some 19th, 20th and 21st stuff that may still survive.
And?
Jonathan: I am really surprised you want to resort to the “nuclear option” to enforce the conservative majority decision in the Harvard, et al, affirmative action cases. Yes, universities will “reimagine” their admissions policies to assure diversity and fairness is central to admission policies. Your answer is to have state legislatures take control of school budgets to deny funding where it is found there might be a challenge to the SC decision–even though this would violate state law, state charters that give universities the right to determine admission policies. Violating state law would seem a rather extreme approach to the problem of how to assure diversity and fairness–to give Black, Brown and Indigenous students the opportunity to get a university education.
But you apparently join with the conservative majority in the view (often espoused by Justice Thomas in his opinions) that we should have a “colorblind” society. This view defies logic and the evidence that we don’t, and have never had, a “colorblind” society. Race has always be a real part of US society, This was recognized in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The conservative SC majority seems to want to turn back the clock when university admissions were reserved for most White people. You apparently agree. I don’t.
We may not have a colorblind society but there is really only one way to achieve one. hint
word salad
“But you apparently join with the conservative majority in the view (often espoused by Justice Thomas in his opinions) that we should have a “colorblind” society. This view defies logic and the evidence that we don’t, and have never had, a “colorblind” society. “
We have been moving in the direction of a colorblind society, but it appears you look for the opposite. A move back to racism and slavery. Good going, Dennis.
No, they want to turn the clock back to when east asians were not barred from admission because of their race.
You cannot assure both diversity and fairness.
Whites are already under represented in university admissions.
If we’re end rounding any court decisions, we need the Whites admitted so they at least match the percentage in the nation. To keep going further and further below that percentage is the new racist crime you’ve been supporting.
Yet more politicization of Federal agencies by Democrats. People of Mass. should investigate Senator Warren at her house ala peaceful protestors. Molotov cocktails optional
“Sen. Elizabeth Warren is calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to launch a probe into Tesla Inc. and its board of directors for potentially violating securities laws over its handling of CEO Elon Musk’s “apparent conflicts” since he purchased and became the chief executive of Twitter.”
Fox News
Put an end to public funding of these institutions and eliminate government-guaranteed student loans. I would go further and require all student loans to be provided by the colleges and universities. Risk-based underwriting criteria for student loans would immediately alter the enrollment rubric, with an additional benefit of ending dead end degree programs.
Agree, Olly. Doing so would also pressure high schools to make sure more students graduate with the ability to read their own diploma before moving on, reducing the need and cost for remedial first-year classes.
Doing so would also pressure high schools to make sure more students graduate with the ability to read their own diploma before moving on, reducing the need and cost for remedial first-year classes.
That’s an excellent point JAFO. The ripple-effect would extend throughout the educational pipeline.
When Democrats lose presidential elections, they propose adding new states to America and getting rid of the electoral college. If those efforts fail, Democrats begin arresting their political opponents. When Democrats encounter immigration laws they don’t like they defy them. When Democrats get Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action ruling they don’t like, they defy the rulings. When Democrats get Supreme Court rulings on college loans they don’t like, they defy the rulings. And, when Democrats encounter a series of Supreme Court rulings they don’t like, they propose adding additional seats to the Court and imposing term limits for the justices.
The one thing Democrats will never do is protect the integrity of the democratic process.
Until ‘Higher Education’ gets back to practicing and encouraging diversity of thought for the students who attend, any changes, however well-meaning, will continue to fall woefully short of this country’s future workforce needs.
JAFO,
Well said.
Read an article a few weeks ago about a company that had to hire someone to train new hires (Gen-Z) how to work in a physical office.
What was most shocking was the lack of face to face communication skills.
I have a good friend who is a teacher said the same about her students, high school age.
Agreed, UpstateFarmer. Eye Contact 101 should become a core requirement too, and soon! 😉
Colleges should not be in the business of encouraging anything except high academic achievement. Any parents concerned about the lack of skin-color diversity or thought diversity on college campuses should get their kids to study more.
Completely agree, specos. Starting with their parents and continuing with every teacher they encounter, kids/students *should* be learning how to negotiate their own future with a solid, foundational, skill-set: Critically thinking for themselves, regardless of their own racial heritage – something that’s sorely lacking in today’s educational environment.
Weak sauce. Take them over and force Conservative faculty numbers to 50%+.
We have 90% libtard now, so it’s their turn to be 10% for decades.
What is affirmative action other than a crutch for laziness’?
Eric Hoffer from ‘The Passionate State of Mind’
“There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day; we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life.”
States can do even more than that. They can stop funding altogether.
I am waiting for the moment when the SCOTUS effectively works itself out of being taken seriously. Or as an old basketball coach of mine in college said: “boys…., we’re just going to disregard that zone defense.”
It’s the logical conclusion to a court packed by the right making partisan decisions because that’s what they’ve been hired to do. Not to mention McConnell’s stealing of a couple appointments.
Anonymous – you are silly
Thank you. You as well!
Ahhh yes, add more incompetents to the SCOTUS so they can assure more incompetents in higher education and everything else.
Pathetic.
I respect your expertise in incompetence!
The anger toward ending affirmative action in college admissions is misdirected. If many minorities will now not meet standards for college admission, the problem isn’t with the ability or inability to admit students based on race. It’s with the lack of a quality education at K-12 public schools, a lack of focus on preparing all students to be successful in whatever they choose (college, trades, careers, etc.), low expectations for minorities (saying they don’t test well, eg), inequitable student funding, and lack of school choice. Having funding follow the student is one option to not only involve parents/mentors in how kids are educated, but will also help ensure a quality education and educational success. Regardless, we should all want and demand that students are prepared for their futures, regardless of their background, race/ethnicity, or choices for their futures.