NJ School Segregation Lawsuit does not go the way the plaintiffs hoped

Politics
1

In 2018 a lawsuit was filed against the State of NJ by the Latino Action Network, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other organizations, claiming racial segregation in NJ schools. Being that segregation is illegal the judges ruling should not have been a surprise:

Mercer County Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy’s 99-page opinion agrees with the plaintiffs — a coalition of students, school districts, and organizations including the NAACP and Latino Action Network — that they “demonstrated marked and persistent racial imbalance” in schools across the state that the state has failed to remedy. But he also found that they “fail to prove the state’s entire education system is unconstitutionally segregated because of race or ethnicity.”

The reality as we all know is that the majority of black and Latino students, are born to single mothers and hence live in poverty as a result, along with the large immigrant populations (both legal and illegal) who are also living in poverty are concentrated in the inner cities. Whereas the majority of white and Asian students come from married two parent households tend to live in the suburbs and attend the local schools there.

The lawsuit hinged on the fact of racial imbalance as stated:

The lawsuit hinges on the accusation that because of a state requirement mandating children attend the schools in towns where they live, schools in New Jersey are heavily segregated. The plaintiffs cite examples like Paterson, where the public schools are nearly 70% Latino and 20% Black, and West Milford, where students of color make up less than 15% of the school population.

In the 674 public school districts serving 1.3 million students, about 585,000 Black and Latino students attend public schools with student populations that are more than 75% non-white, the lawsuit says, citing 2017 data. More than half of those students attend schools that are more than 90% non-white.

Which the judge acknowledged, but the reality - outside of busing children to different towns based on the color of their skin - is that there was no simple way to remedy the situation (and arguably none was needed). Personally, what if find funny about all this is how it exposes lib hypocrisy. Libs largely hate white people and are eagerly awaiting the day that America is not majority white, and you would think that they would love the fact that their children are in schools that are NOT majority white. Heck, how many times have I found articles complaining that non-white students can’t learn and hence don’t succeed because most of their teachers are white. This just exposes another facet of lib hypocrisy.

2

Oh, here’s the reaction of the plaintiffs:

Education activists are expressing disappointment with a judge’s long-awaited ruling that found a racial imbalance in numerous New Jersey school districts, but not widespread segregation statewide.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Gary Stein, chairman of the New Jersey Coalition for Diverse and Inclusive Schools, which launched the legal fight targeting school segregation, called Friday’s ruling “hard to understand.”

3

So they want bussing. Aren’t they terrified of all the “racists” in the suburbs? I mean, that’s practically Klan country. Seriously though, this will just make the number of private and homeschooled students go way up.

1 Like
4

Therein lies the hypocrisy that I noted. Libs (particularly lib elites) and obsess over nonsense like “White Supremacists”, and “White Privilege”, so you would think that they would love the fact that black and brown children are in schools that are NOT majority white.

Regarding what will happen next after this ruling is hard to say. This particular case and ruling took five years!

Julie Borst is the executive director of Save Our Schools, a nonprofit school advocacy organization that was not involved in the lawsuit but supports its mission. She said she was disappointed but not surprised by Lougy’s opinion.

She argued that a trial could be good for the public to better understand this issue. Potential remedies to school segregation — like busing students to other districts or specialized magnet schools — are complicated, and could confuse parents, she said.

And now that this may go to trial, it could drag on for months or years. Borst worries about what this means for another generation of students attending segregated schools. She doesn’t think the state will seek out a solution or overhaul school residency requirements without an order from a judge.

Seeking to bus students out of one town into another based on their race would obviously spurn NUMEROUS lawsuits from parents in suburban districts and would not succeed on any legal grounds, not to mention the exorbitant costs that would be involved.

1 Like
5

The situation is not good.

But the Plaintiffs, while well meaning, are approaching the problem from entirely the wrong tack.

The issue is NOT educational segregation.

The issue is residential segregation.

And there are ways to deal with that without compulsion (against ordinary citizens anyhow).

A major rethinking of our zoning practices that tend to maintain or even increase residential segregation is needed.

In numerous areas, zoning changes that intermix low income and high income residential neighborhoods in a checkerboard fashion have the side result of mixing races in a close proximity.

This solves the educational issue by default, since rich and poor go to the same districts, thus creating the side result of racially mixing these schools.

No racial mandates necessary.

2 Likes
6

How does that work? What’s the mechanics?

7

That depends on the specifics of the area and the mechanics can be different.

For example. Most cities have large swaths of R-1 zoning (standard single family homes on around a quarter acre of land).

Break up some of that unused zoning area. Leave some as R-1 but change some of that to medium density (small apartment buildings). Create some areas of low income R-1. This can be done by reducing required lot sizes, required structure size, eliminating requirements for off street parking (i.e. no garage, no carport, no driveway). Smaller, cheaper, affordable starter homes are the result and would be in proximity to higher income neighborhoods and would share the same schools.

1 Like
8

People work all their lives to put their families in a nice house with a yard in a nice school district and you want to put projects and gov houses in between them?

Who buys “starter houses”?

1 Like
9

If you don’t want people around you, do as I did.

Buy vast acreage in the boondocks.

You have the right to your own property.

You don’t have the right to dictate who your neighbors are.

1 Like
10

So yes. And all so somebody doesn’t “feel bad.”

Actually you do, although “right” is not the correct word.

They’ll be coming for you eventually.

1 Like
11

Nobody is coming after anybody.

People just want ■■■■■■■ affordable places to live and zoning should accommodate that.

That is not a lot to ask.

2 Likes
12

Oh yes they are and ypu aren’t special.

No, they want nice places to live in places they can’t afford.

3 Likes
13

If you own a piece of residential property, why shouldn’t you be able to put whatever type of housing you want on it?

14

Own it without the subsidy.

1 Like
15

Even Florida has enacted a version of Statewide zoning reform and many other Republican States are exploring measures, as well as Democratic States.

16

Well hell, Florida Man says it’s ok? Never mind.

But the bill promises to invest more than $700 million in affordable housing for middle-income families, and achieves a set of state-level zoning reforms that other legislatures have struggled to build consensus around.

Thank you.

17

The majority of libs are white…. :rofl:

1 Like
18

Yet still…

19

Which probably should cause you concern about their intentions.

20

No difference than black lib elites hating black conservatives. It’s not complicated.

2 Likes