Reading Thurgood Marshall as a Liberal Democratic Theorist: Race, School Finance, and the Courts

A. Smith
{"title":"Reading Thurgood Marshall as a Liberal Democratic Theorist: Race, School Finance, and the Courts","authors":"A. Smith","doi":"10.7208/chicago/9780226012933.003.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An interpretation of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s theory of liberal democracy, drawn principally from his dissenting opinions in two landmark education cases: Milliken v. Bradley (1974) and San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973). Milliken held that because the white-majority suburban districts in the greater Detroit area had not engaged in proven de jure racial discrimination, the federal court could not impose a multi-district remedy upon them. In his dissent, Marshall argues that the Milliken decision represents a “giant step backwards,” away from the desegregative and egalitarian orientation of Brown v. Board of Education (1954.) Marshall recites Brown’s holdings on violative stigmatic injury, and reasons that the multi-district remedy would have provided relief to Detroit’s African-American schoolchildren. Although Rodriguez dealt with the constitutionality of state school funding scheme, rather than racially segregative public school policies, Marshall sounded similar themes in his 1973 dissent. In Rodriguez, the Court decided that the Texan scheme met its rational basis test since it promoted “local control,” a permissible governmental purpose. Marshall reasoned that the Texan law was impermissibly arbitrary: its heavy reliance on property-tax based local contributions meant that the pupils living in property-poor districts were denied equal educational opportunity. Marshall argues that the right to education is implicitly guaranteed by the federal constitution, given the fact that access to an adequate education is indispensable for the exercise of protected political rights, including free speech and voting. Marshall defines education rights as an entitlement to a unique public good, insofar as securing access to an adequate and equitably funded education for the least advantaged children places them on the path to equal citizenship. Extending beyond Marshall’s actual opinions, the chapter argues that Marshall would argue that Parents Involved v. Seattle School District (2007), which struck down voluntary integrative pupil assignment, was wrongly decided. However, the spirit of Marshall’s theory lives on in the state courts’ decisions favoring the plaintiffs in state school finance case. There are particularly close parallels between Marshall’s discourse and the New York state court decision, Campaign for Fiscal Equity (2003), given the latter’s definition of the adequate education guaranteed under the New York constitution with reference to the high school graduate’s preparation for voting and jury service.","PeriodicalId":372916,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Citizenship (Topic)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Citizenship (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226012933.003.0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An interpretation of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s theory of liberal democracy, drawn principally from his dissenting opinions in two landmark education cases: Milliken v. Bradley (1974) and San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973). Milliken held that because the white-majority suburban districts in the greater Detroit area had not engaged in proven de jure racial discrimination, the federal court could not impose a multi-district remedy upon them. In his dissent, Marshall argues that the Milliken decision represents a “giant step backwards,” away from the desegregative and egalitarian orientation of Brown v. Board of Education (1954.) Marshall recites Brown’s holdings on violative stigmatic injury, and reasons that the multi-district remedy would have provided relief to Detroit’s African-American schoolchildren. Although Rodriguez dealt with the constitutionality of state school funding scheme, rather than racially segregative public school policies, Marshall sounded similar themes in his 1973 dissent. In Rodriguez, the Court decided that the Texan scheme met its rational basis test since it promoted “local control,” a permissible governmental purpose. Marshall reasoned that the Texan law was impermissibly arbitrary: its heavy reliance on property-tax based local contributions meant that the pupils living in property-poor districts were denied equal educational opportunity. Marshall argues that the right to education is implicitly guaranteed by the federal constitution, given the fact that access to an adequate education is indispensable for the exercise of protected political rights, including free speech and voting. Marshall defines education rights as an entitlement to a unique public good, insofar as securing access to an adequate and equitably funded education for the least advantaged children places them on the path to equal citizenship. Extending beyond Marshall’s actual opinions, the chapter argues that Marshall would argue that Parents Involved v. Seattle School District (2007), which struck down voluntary integrative pupil assignment, was wrongly decided. However, the spirit of Marshall’s theory lives on in the state courts’ decisions favoring the plaintiffs in state school finance case. There are particularly close parallels between Marshall’s discourse and the New York state court decision, Campaign for Fiscal Equity (2003), given the latter’s definition of the adequate education guaranteed under the New York constitution with reference to the high school graduate’s preparation for voting and jury service.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阅读瑟古德·马歇尔作为自由民主理论家:种族、学校财政和法院
对瑟古德·马歇尔大法官的自由民主理论的解释,主要来自他在两个具有里程碑意义的教育案件中的反对意见:米利肯诉布拉德利案(1974年)和圣安东尼奥诉罗德里格斯案(1973年)。米利肯认为,由于大底特律地区白人占多数的郊区没有被证明存在法律上的种族歧视,联邦法院不能对他们施加多地区救济。在他的异议中,马歇尔认为,米利肯案的判决代表了一个“巨大的倒退”,背离了布朗诉教育委员会案(1954年)中废除种族隔离和平等主义的方向。马歇尔列举了布朗对侵犯性侮辱性伤害案的判决,并解释说,多地区的补救措施将为底特律的非裔美国学童提供救济。虽然罗德里格斯处理的是州立学校资助计划的合宪性,而不是种族隔离的公立学校政策,但马歇尔在1973年的异议中也表达了类似的主题。在罗德里格斯案中,法院裁定德州的方案符合其理性基础检验,因为它促进了“地方控制”,这是一种允许的政府目的。马歇尔认为,德州的法律过于武断,这是不允许的:它严重依赖财产税,这意味着生活在财产贫乏地区的学生被剥夺了平等的教育机会。马歇尔认为,受教育权受到联邦宪法的隐含保障,因为接受适当的教育是行使受保护的政治权利(包括言论自由和选举自由)所不可或缺的。马歇尔将受教育权定义为一种独特的公共利益的权利,只要确保最弱势儿童获得充分和公平资助的教育,就能使他们走上平等公民身份的道路。在马歇尔的实际观点之外,本章认为,马歇尔会认为,“家长参与诉西雅图学区案”(Parents Involved v. Seattle School District, 2007)推翻了学生自愿综合分配的判决是错误的。然而,马歇尔理论的精神在州法院在州立学校财政案件中有利于原告的判决中得以延续。马歇尔的论述与纽约州法院2003年的一项裁决“争取财政公平运动”(Campaign for Fiscal Equity, 2003)有着特别密切的相似之处,因为后者对纽约州宪法所保障的充分教育的定义,参考了高中毕业生为投票和陪审团服务所做的准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
European Citizenship in Crisis: Citizenship Rights and Austerity Politics Reading Thurgood Marshall as a Liberal Democratic Theorist: Race, School Finance, and the Courts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1