正文
紐約時報 美國如今恢複種族隔離
2007年06月29日 星島環球網 來源：美國《紐約時報》
五十三年前，最高法院在布朗訴教育委員會案（Brown v. Board of Education）中裁定隔離教育是內在的不平等，並命令國家學校融合。6月28日，最高法院倒戈，告訴兩個城市它們不能采取適度措施把不同種族的公校學生帶到一起。對法院，對種族平等的理念，這是悲傷的日子。
自1954年以來，最高法院一直是國家種族融合的驅動力。它的命令要求種族隔離的公共汽車和公共建築、公園和遊樂場向所有美國人開放。事情並不總是順利：州長、參議員和憤怒的暴徒大規模抵製。但法院從沒動搖，而且在許多最重要的案子上它態度一致。
6月28日，在首席大法官羅伯茨（John Roberts）書寫的5－4裁決中，法院激進的新多數派背棄這個光榮的傳統。法院用力強迫地方政府促進種族融合已有一段時間了（今年法院變得越發保守）。但如今它朝著相反方向前進，露骨地命令公立學校變得更隔離。
給出多數派的第五票的肯尼迪法官（Anthony Kennedy）在某種程度上抑製了裁決，他隻簽署了多數意見的一部分，並另外書寫，強調一些有限的、考慮種族的項目仍然是可接受的。但不清楚在學校推廣融合的實踐中他的分析會有多少空間。他不願意支持西雅圖和路易斯維爾相對溫和的計劃，這當然是一個令人沮喪的跡象。
布雷耶法官（Stephen Breyer）在雄辯的異議中解釋這個裁決與曆史有多麽尖銳的割裂。最高法院常常命令學校減輕種族意識，而且它一致地決定基於種族分配，“為學生生活在多元社會作準備”是“學校當局廣泛裁量權的分內事”。
首席法官羅伯茨曾經在任職聽證會上向參議院保證他會尊重先例。如今他急切地把先例拋一邊去，特別是布朗案。法院右翼還拋開了他們宣稱會珍視的兩外兩個原則。他們的“聯邦主義”運動，或縮減聯邦權力讓州和地方獲得更多權力，主張支持西雅圖和路易斯維爾項目。他們還本應反對“司法能動”。這個裁決就是能動的高地：聯邦法官依據憲法告訴民選的地方官員要做什麽。
國家變得越來越多元化，但公立學校的許多措施變得越來越隔離。如今超過六分之一的黑人兒童在99%到100%少數民族的學校上學。由於法庭的裁決，重新種族隔離可能變得更糟一些。
說這個裁決有多偏激都不為過。在異議中，史蒂文斯法官（John Paul Stevens）表示，他深信1975年（他加入法院時）沒有法官會同意今天的裁決。他還指出法院在依據布朗訴教育委員會案的同時剝奪這個裏程碑性裁決的大量力量和精神，這是“殘忍的反諷”。路易斯維爾和西雅圖的公民，以及全國其他地方的公民，在今天上班時可以思考多數派的那類言辭會令他們的學校、他們的城市更加隔離。
原文如下：
Resegregation Now
Published: June 29, 2007
The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation’s schools to integrate. Yesterday, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.
Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation’s driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn’t always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.
Yesterday, the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the majority’s fifth vote, reined in the ruling somewhat by signing only part of the majority opinion and writing separately to underscore that some limited programs that take race into account are still acceptable. But it is unclear how much room his analysis will leave, in practice, for school districts to promote integration. His unwillingness to uphold Seattle’s and Louisville’s relatively modest plans is certainly a discouraging sign.
In an eloquent dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer explained just how sharp a break the decision is with history. The Supreme Court has often ordered schools to use race-conscious remedies, and it has unanimously held that deciding to make assignments based on race “to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society” is “within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities.”
Chief Justice Roberts, who assured the Senate at his confirmation hearings that he respected precedent, and Brown in particular, eagerly set these precedents aside. The right wing of the court also tossed aside two other principles they claim to hold dear. Their campaign for “federalism,” or scaling back federal power so states and localities have more authority, argued for upholding the Seattle and Louisville, Ky., programs. So did their supposed opposition to “judicial activism.” This decision is the height of activism: federal judges relying on the Constitution to tell elected local officials what to do.
The nation is getting more diverse, but by many measures public schools are becoming more segregated. More than one in six black children now attend schools that are 99 to 100 percent minority. This resegregation is likely to get appreciably worse as a result of the court’s ruling.
There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.
2007年06月29日 星島環球網 來源：美國《紐約時報》
五十三年前，最高法院在布朗訴教育委員會案（Brown v. Board of Education）中裁定隔離教育是內在的不平等，並命令國家學校融合。6月28日，最高法院倒戈，告訴兩個城市它們不能采取適度措施把不同種族的公校學生帶到一起。對法院，對種族平等的理念，這是悲傷的日子。
自1954年以來，最高法院一直是國家種族融合的驅動力。它的命令要求種族隔離的公共汽車和公共建築、公園和遊樂場向所有美國人開放。事情並不總是順利：州長、參議員和憤怒的暴徒大規模抵製。但法院從沒動搖，而且在許多最重要的案子上它態度一致。
6月28日，在首席大法官羅伯茨（John Roberts）書寫的5－4裁決中，法院激進的新多數派背棄這個光榮的傳統。法院用力強迫地方政府促進種族融合已有一段時間了（今年法院變得越發保守）。但如今它朝著相反方向前進，露骨地命令公立學校變得更隔離。
給出多數派的第五票的肯尼迪法官（Anthony Kennedy）在某種程度上抑製了裁決，他隻簽署了多數意見的一部分，並另外書寫，強調一些有限的、考慮種族的項目仍然是可接受的。但不清楚在學校推廣融合的實踐中他的分析會有多少空間。他不願意支持西雅圖和路易斯維爾相對溫和的計劃，這當然是一個令人沮喪的跡象。
布雷耶法官（Stephen Breyer）在雄辯的異議中解釋這個裁決與曆史有多麽尖銳的割裂。最高法院常常命令學校減輕種族意識，而且它一致地決定基於種族分配，“為學生生活在多元社會作準備”是“學校當局廣泛裁量權的分內事”。
首席法官羅伯茨曾經在任職聽證會上向參議院保證他會尊重先例。如今他急切地把先例拋一邊去，特別是布朗案。法院右翼還拋開了他們宣稱會珍視的兩外兩個原則。他們的“聯邦主義”運動，或縮減聯邦權力讓州和地方獲得更多權力，主張支持西雅圖和路易斯維爾項目。他們還本應反對“司法能動”。這個裁決就是能動的高地：聯邦法官依據憲法告訴民選的地方官員要做什麽。
國家變得越來越多元化，但公立學校的許多措施變得越來越隔離。如今超過六分之一的黑人兒童在99%到100%少數民族的學校上學。由於法庭的裁決，重新種族隔離可能變得更糟一些。
說這個裁決有多偏激都不為過。在異議中，史蒂文斯法官（John Paul Stevens）表示，他深信1975年（他加入法院時）沒有法官會同意今天的裁決。他還指出法院在依據布朗訴教育委員會案的同時剝奪這個裏程碑性裁決的大量力量和精神，這是“殘忍的反諷”。路易斯維爾和西雅圖的公民，以及全國其他地方的公民，在今天上班時可以思考多數派的那類言辭會令他們的學校、他們的城市更加隔離。
原文如下：
Resegregation Now
Published: June 29, 2007
The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation’s schools to integrate. Yesterday, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.
Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation’s driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn’t always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.
Yesterday, the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the majority’s fifth vote, reined in the ruling somewhat by signing only part of the majority opinion and writing separately to underscore that some limited programs that take race into account are still acceptable. But it is unclear how much room his analysis will leave, in practice, for school districts to promote integration. His unwillingness to uphold Seattle’s and Louisville’s relatively modest plans is certainly a discouraging sign.
In an eloquent dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer explained just how sharp a break the decision is with history. The Supreme Court has often ordered schools to use race-conscious remedies, and it has unanimously held that deciding to make assignments based on race “to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society” is “within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities.”
Chief Justice Roberts, who assured the Senate at his confirmation hearings that he respected precedent, and Brown in particular, eagerly set these precedents aside. The right wing of the court also tossed aside two other principles they claim to hold dear. Their campaign for “federalism,” or scaling back federal power so states and localities have more authority, argued for upholding the Seattle and Louisville, Ky., programs. So did their supposed opposition to “judicial activism.” This decision is the height of activism: federal judges relying on the Constitution to tell elected local officials what to do.
The nation is getting more diverse, but by many measures public schools are becoming more segregated. More than one in six black children now attend schools that are 99 to 100 percent minority. This resegregation is likely to get appreciably worse as a result of the court’s ruling.
There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
