Use of Race in School Placement Curbed

In a decision of sweeping importance to educators, parents and schoolchildren across the country, the Supreme Court today sharply limited the ability of school districts to manage the racial makeup of the student bodies in their schools.

The court voted, 5 to 4, to reject diversity plans from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., declaring that the districts had failed to meet “their heavy burden” of justifying “the extreme means they have chosen — discriminating among individual students based on race by relying upon racial classifications in making school assignments,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

This ruling can be seen as a direct assault on the Brown vs. Board of education decision in 1954. Is it possible that we will go back to the separate but equal school system that we had without ever having to state that publicly?

The rationale of the chief justice’s opinion relied in part on the historic 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that outlawed segregation in public schools — a factor that the dissenters on the court found to be a cruel irony, and which they objected to in emotional terms.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

That is the most simplistic and idiotic explanation for a ruling that I have ever heard. In what world does Justice Roberts live? If stopping discrimination was that easy we would not have the racial prejudice that exists in this country today.

Will this ruling be used as the legal precedent to get rid of affirmative action? If you listen to Justice Roberts it would appear that is a strong possibility.

Mark Rahdert, a Temple Law School professor and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, said that today’s ruling means that “racial balance” will be “the new catchphrase conservatives will use to attempt to eradicate any form of affirmative action.”

As for Justice Kennedy’s “willingness to leave the door open to some forms of affirmative action,” it will be impossible as a practical matter, Mr. Rahdert said.

The National Urban League issued a statement asserting that today’s decision “could end up legalizing re-segregation nationwide by raising the bar for achieving racial diversity.”

Dissenting Justice Stephen Breyer said to an open court "It's not often that so few, have changed so much for so many."

Tolerance Is Controversial

In Indiana a teacher has been disciplined after allowing an article in the school newspaper which asked for tolerance for homosexuals. She was disciplined because all controversial articles need to be cleared through the principal.

The agreement she signed includes a written reprimand that says she neglected her duties as a teacher and was insubordinate in refusing to obey school officials' orders.

Sorrell said she is "very proud" of Megan Chase, the student who wrote the editorial calling for tolerance and acceptance of gays, and the Tomahawk's other writers and editors. But she said she could not financially afford to fight the school district over her discipline.

After reading this article I became extremely angry. Since when is tolerance controversial? Are we still living in America when a teacher who advocates tolerance for all is disciplined? I would guess that if the article was about how homosexuality was against the bible she would have been given a salary raise. This is disgusting on every level. When will our so called Christian nation finally realize that Christianity on its most basic level is tolerance and love. The American Taliban strikes again.

Sallie Mae to be Sold for 25 Billion

Just yesterday I wrote a post about how student loans were big business. Today it is reported that Sallie Mae, the nations largest lender to college students has been sold for 25 billion to a group that includes JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.

For Sallie Mae, which originates nearly 23 percent of student loans, this deal may be a salvation at a time when its business model has been under attack from several directions. All the uncertainty has caused Sallie Mae’s stock to plunge more than 20 percent over the last year, making it a takeover target.

My post yesterday talked about how it is actually more costly to the government to guarantee loans outside the direct loan program. Why would JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America pay such a huge sum of money if it would not translate into profit for them? The loser in this deal will be the college students of America who will undoubtedly pay higher costs for student loans and the American taxpayer who will once again subsidize big business.

Read this article here.

Student Loans Are Big Business

The government's role as direct lender for student loans is under assault by financial institutions seeking their piece of the pie. Once again what is best for the American taxpayer is second to what is wanted by big business. With most college students requiring student loans to finance their education the profit potential for these institutions is enormous.

In a fierce contest to control the student loan market, the nation’s banks and lenders have for years waged a successful campaign to limit a federal program that was intended to make borrowing less costly by having the government provide loans directly to students.

President Clinton felt having the United States government be the direct lender would result in lower costs to the government since they would be collecting the interest. According to a study by the Bush Administration this is true.

President Bush’s budget reports that in 2006 for every $100 lent by private lenders, the cost to the government of subsidies, defaults and other items was $13.81, while the same amount lent through the direct loan program cost the government $3.85. The battle for dominance in the loan market has escalated as tuitions have soared and students have borrowed more. This is the context for many of the payments to universities and financial aid officials that have come to light as a result of recent investigations into student loan practices.

Since the program is cheaper for the goverment why are the Republicans trying to kill it? When will the Middle Class wake up and realize that the Republican Party does not care about them?

Read the rest of the article here.