You may have heard that in July 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two landmark affirmative action cases. In both cases, the Court basically ruled that school desegregation plans that are based on race/ethnicity are unconstitutional. In other words, using the race/ethnicity of students to decide who goes to what school is illegal.

With that in mind, the question becomes, how about school desegregation plans that are based on social class instead -- how effective are they at achieving racial/ethnic integration? Try shed light on this question, the New York Times examines the case of several public school districts around the country and finds that in many cases, using social class instead of race to achieve racial integration is not a magical cure-all:

San Francisco began considering factors like family income, instead of race, in school assignments when it modified a court-ordered desegregation plan in response to a lawsuit. But school officials have found that the 55,000-student city school district, with Chinese the dominant ethnic group followed by Hispanics, blacks and whites, is resegregrating.

The number of schools where students of a single racial or ethnic group make up 60 percent or more of the population in at least one grade is increasing sharply. In 2005-06, about 50 schools were segregated using that standard as measured by a court-appointed monitor. That was up from 30 schools in the 2001-02 school year, the year before the change, according to court filings. . . .

Many of these experiments are modest, involve small districts or have been in place only a few years. But the experiences of these districts show how difficult it can be to balance socioeconomic diversity, racial integration and academic success.

Only a few plans appear to have achieved all three goals. Others promote income diversity but not racial integration while still other plans are limited and their results inconclusive. Those who have studied them say a key to that outcome is how aggressively a plan shifts students around and whether there are many schools that can lure middle-class students from their neighborhoods into poor ones.

To be sure, racial integration in public schools is a complicated issue. In this context, the main point that I want to emphasize is that, while educational policy is not one of my specific areas of expertise, it seems to me that the fundamental problem here is that some schools have more money and other resources than others and that racial segregation is just a symptom of this basic inequality.

In other words, as a result of the larger issue of residential segregation, in many public school districts, Black students are frequently confined to neighborhoods where property values -- and therefore property taxes that are used to fund schools in that district -- are lower than in predominantly White suburbs. Therefore, while money doesn’t solve everything, these mainly Black schools have less money to hire high quality teachers and to buy equipment, materials, fix their infrastructure, fund extracurricular activities, etc.

Therefore, while I may be totally missing the picture, it seems to me that in order to fix the problem at its most basic level, what we need first is a reshuffling of funds before we try to reshuffle students. That is, some kind of redistribution of school funds seems to be the only solution that will begin the process of eventual racial integration.

Of course, affluent school districts won’t be keen to have some of their money taken away. But maybe they won’t have to -- maybe the answer is for the state to redistribute funds from other projects or to generate new funds for these needy district some other way. The bottom line is, if educating our young people is the key to our future, we need to look at the root cause of the problem and then every option available to address that problem.

As a sociologist and someone who has gone through my own trials and tribulations of getting a Ph.D., the question of how to improve the chances of grad students -- particularly students of color -- finishing their doctorate degrees is an academic and personal interest of mine. To try to shed some light on this question, Inside Higher Education reports on a new study conducted by the Council of Graduate Schools that delineates some of the issues that are still paramount in determining who finishes and who drops out:

The results reinforce the belief about the role of money in promoting completion. Those who finished up their doctorates ranked financial issues as the top factor in enabling them to do so. And to the extent the data show differences among disciplines in financing, those differences carry over to rates of completion (humanities students need to borrow more, and take longer to finish).

With regard to the “main factors” contributing to completion, new Ph.D.’s (who could pick more than one item that applied) ranked the following: 80 percent cited financial support, 63 percent mentoring/advising, 60 percent family support, 39 percent social environment and peer support, 39 percent program quality, and 30 percent professional and career guidance. . . .

Previous studies by various groups have found that time-to-completion rates for humanities fields lag those for others, and the Council of Graduate Schools effort provided more confirmation. In the physical and biological science and technology fields, more than half of those in entering cohorts are earning a doctorate between year six and seven of a program. In the social sciences, year seven sees only a completion rate of just over 40 percent; in the humanities the figure is 29 percent.

The article notes that the study’s authors are still analyzing all of the data, so more analysis will be forthcoming. Nonetheless, this preliminary data by academic field shows some notable differences. It is sobering to see that among Ph.D. students in the social sciences (where I got my degree), barely half who start grad school will eventually get their doctorate degree after 10 years.

I look forward to seeing the study’s results as it pertains to rates of completion by gender, social class background, and race/ethnicity.

In the past year or so, the topic of wealth inequality has finally received some attention from the media, politicians, and even some of the wealthiest people in the U.S., such as Warren Buffett who recently told an audience how ridiculous it is that his federal tax rate is lower than that of his secretary’s. In that context, have you ever wondered how today’s wealthiest Americans compare to their counterparts from the first half of the 20th century, when wealth inequality was just as great?

To give you a picture of this comparison across decades, the New York Times has a very interesting interactive graphic that compares the Wealthiest Americans of All Time. The results show, for example, that the richest American today (and probably the richest person on earth), Bill Gates, has an estimated wealth of $82 billion. However, that actually pales in comparison to the richest American of all time, John D. Rockefeller, whose wealth totaled $192 billion at its height.

It’s a pretty interesting comparison, with astronomical numbers involved.

As I’m sure you know already, earlier this month President Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s 2.5-year prison sentence on his conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice charges, his friend and Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff. Not surprisingly, this has raised the ire of many liberals who see this as political cronyism but also another example of how race and social class determine justice in this country, especially in comparison to cases like a young Black man serving a ten-year prison sentence for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15 year old:

Genarlow Wilson has been in prison for two years for taking part in the sex act when he was 17 years old. . . . State Rep. Alisha Thomas Morgan said Wilson’s punishment was excessive and should be reduced, just like the prison sentence for former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, which was commuted Monday by President Bush. “Genarlow is the face of many other young black men who have received injustice,” Thomas Morgan said. “Somebody’s got to stand up for them.”

“If he had a different complexion and a different connection, we wouldn’t be here,” Sharpton said. Wilson, now 21, is serving a 10-year mandatory sentence for aggravated child molestation stemming from a 2003 New Year’s Eve Party where he was captured on videotape receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. The law has since been changed by Georgia lawmakers, but the state’s top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively. . . .

On June 11, Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson ruled that Genarlow Wilson should be freed from prison and not listed on Georgia’s sex offender registry. The judge called the 10-year mandatory sentence “a grave miscarriage of justice” that violated the constitution. Attorney General Thurbert Baker immediately appealed that ruling, drawing criticism from civil rights activists. The Georgia Supreme Court is set to hear the latest appeal in October.

I completely agree that, as is too often the case in this country, the contrast between Scooter Libby and Genarlow Wilson shows that if you happen to be White, affluent, and politically well-connected, your chances at avoiding prison for any crime is significantly better than if you are Black and not wealthy. This is not an isolated case -- I can spend hours documenting similar contrasts between how Whites and Blacks are consistently treated differently by the criminal justice system and in fact, there are already scores of books specifically written about this topic.

The bottom line is, there are two criminal justice systems in this country -- one for affluent Whites and another for the rest of us.

As the violence and bloodshed in Iraq, against Shiites, Sunnis, and against U.S. military personnel, continue unabated, as the Associated Press reports, the time has come for the U.S. to discuss one alternative strategy for achieving peace, or at the least, to significantly reduce the violence: partitioning Iraq into separate semi-autonomous regions:

[Edward P. Joseph of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution] are proposing a partition plan that would divide Iraq into three main regions. . . . Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware [has also] sought for months to attract support for a partition plan he formulated with Leslie Gelb, former head of the private Council on Foreign Relations. . . .

Under the plan, Iraqis would divide the country into three main regions. Each would assume primary responsibility for its own security and governance, as Iraqi Kurds already have in Kurdistan. “Creating such a structure could prove to be difficult and risky,” the report said. “However, when measured against the alternatives -- continuing to police an ethnic-sectarian war, or withdrawing and allowing the conflict to escalate -- the risks of soft partition appear more acceptable.” . . .

The proposal would require the acquiescence of major political factions in Iraq. There would be substantial, voluntary movement in mixed, volatile areas.

As a Vietnamese American whose family has experienced firsthand the turmoil associated with having your country divided up, I can personally attest to the logistical and emotional costs and difficulties that would be involved with such a plan. At the same time, the practical reality is that what we’ve been doing in Iraq up to this point obviously isn’t working. Therefore, at the least, we need to seriously begin considering alternative strategies such as this.

Although such a plan may isn’t perfect, the experience of North and South Korea show that partitioning a country is, at the least, likely to significantly reduce the level of violence and bloodshed involved, presuming that the borders can be kept secure. Also, allowing Iraqis to voluntarily move if they wish would also avert the crisis of instantaneously dividing families through such a partition plan, as was the case with North and South Korea.

Again, partitioning a country is not the ideal solution, but given the “fubar” situation that we have now, it may be the best solution possible.

This post is to let you, my loyal readers, know that I will be on hiatus for the next week-and-a-half or so -- I will be attending a ten-day silent Vipassana Buddhist meditation retreat. I’ve attended this retreat two times already but this time, a couple of buddies are driving in from out-of-town to attend the retreat for the first time, and I will be joining them.

The Vipassana tradition of Buddhist meditation is considered to be a very traditional, orthodox, and rather grueling form of Buddhist meditation and in addition to it being ten days, participants are not allowed to talk at all during the whole period, nor even to acknowledge anyone else’s presence. And of course, there is no TV, radio, books, music, or Internet allowed.

We’re not likely to achieve nirvana any time soon, but each step that gets us closer to that goal is a good thing. In the meantime, thanks for your patience and I’ll blog again when I get back.

You might recall that next year, the Summer Olympics will be held in Beijing, China. Ever since Beijing was selected as the host city, there have been a storm of outcry and controversy regarding its appropriateness, given international criticism about internal human rights abuses and individual liberty restrictions, its continuing occupation of Tibet, accelerating environmental degradation, and implicit support of totalitarian regimes such as Sudan, to name the main issues.

Nonetheless, with the 2008 Olympics fast approaching, China’s critics are preparing to use the Games to amplify their criticisms against China. However, since the Olympic Games also represent a major corporate sponsorship opportunity for many U.S. companies, many of whom stand to be judged guilty by association if they have any involvement in the Games. As BusinessWeek magazine reports, these companies are seemingly caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place:

[M]ost sponsors are counting on a high-profile presence in Beijing to build their brands in the mainland and win favor among Chinese consumers and officials alike. . . . [At the same time,] says Matt Whitticase, press officer with The Free Tibet Campaign, which opposes Chinese rule in Tibet: “You cannot as a large multinational trumpet your corporate responsibility credentials, while at the same time indulging China and refusing to criticize it.” . . . .

To deflect criticism, most sponsors seem to be following a three-pronged strategy: They stress the global nature of the Games, point to other charitable work, and show concern for the activists’ causes without directly mentioning Beijing. Companies are likely to “express their commitment to human rights in ways that don’t clearly embarrass their Chinese hosts,” says Shireman of Future 500. . . .

McDonald’s says the Olympics are not the right forum for discussing Darfur. GE notes that its foundation has given $2 million to fund humanitarian efforts in Sudan. United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) highlights its work in aiding the poor worldwide. . . . Adidas says it is open to dialogue with activists. But rather than lean on the Chinese government, the maker of athletic shoes prefers to spur change by pressuring its suppliers, “where we have direct influence,” says Frank Henke, Adidas’ global director for social and environmental affairs.

Some time ago, I wrote about the controversy surrounding Internet search giants such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft censoring their search results for users in China, in accordance with the Chinese government’s restrictions. In that post, I said that it was rather hypocritical for companies, particularly Google and its corporate-wide credo of “Don’t Be Evil,” to turn around and ignore these principles of free speech by helping the Chinese government with their censorship activities.

In this case with Olympics sponsors, there is no such contradiction -- these multinational corporations have no corporate credo about not doing evil, promoting free speech, or any other idealistic principle about furthering the human community. Instead, their own credo is maximum profits and maximum returns for their shareholders. Therefore, I am not surprised at all to hear that apparently, the vast majority of them consider activist protests against their participation in the Chinese Olympics as a mere public relations nuisance.

On the other hand, with the power of the Internet and its ability to facilitate communication and coordination of activism, these corporations may be in for a rude awakening if calls for boycotts and other actions against them reach a critical mass, due to their implicit support of Chinese repression. We’ve seen it before -- General Electric leaving the defense contractor business, Nike paying more attention to working conditions in their overseas factories, companies divesting from Sudan, campaigns to get colleges to stop doing business with Coke, etc.

Public revolts against oppression -- and those implicitly supporting oppression -- are real and in many cases, are effective. That’s the bottom line that these corporations might need to pay more attention to.

One of the basic benefits of being a U.S. citizen is that it gives you the privilege of being able to vote in elections. However, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, in many localities around the country, there is a small but growing movement to extend the right to vote to non-citizen immigrants, which not surprisingly, involves strong opinions on both sides:

Supporters argue that non-citizens are long-term residents who care about the same local issues that citizens do: good schools, safe streets, reliable trash collection. Many pay taxes. Some are US military veterans. “They’re living there, they have their kids in school, they’re working, they’re contributing to the local economy,” says Kathleen Coll, a cultural anthropologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. “They’re full, complete local citizens [who are] affected by local policies.” . . .

Some advocates want to limit voting rights to legal immigrants who intend to become citizens but haven’t completed the process. Because naturalization takes on average eight years, the Migration Policy Institute reports, parents could see their 10-year-old graduate from high school before having a say in the public school system. . . .

But enfranchising non-citizens would unfairly dilute the strength of citizens’ votes, says one critic, Steve Cameron, director of research at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies. . . . For opponents, reviving the practice is just another step in accommodating unnecessary – and sometimes unlawful – immigrants.

As you see, the debate around the merits of immigration -- legal and illegal -- are still raging in this country. If you’re familiar with any of my previous postings, you already know that I strongly support immigrant rights -- legal and illegal. With that in mind, it won’t come as a shock to hear that I strongly support these efforts to give non-citizens the right to vote -- provided that they are legal immigrants, however.

I completely support the argument that the most important factor in deciding who gets to vote should be whether a person contributes to the cultural, political, and economic strength of the country, not whether a person happens to be born inside the U.S. or not.

In that sense, a non-citizen immigrant who pays federal, state, and sales taxes, spends almost all of his/her income in the U.S., obeys its laws, etc. should have at least as much of a right to vote than someone who is too lazy to get an education, skips paying taxes, and is constantly engaging in criminal activity, but happens to be born in the U.S. To paraphrase the great Martin Luther King, Jr., what should matter is not the country in which you were born, but by the content of your deeds and actions while in the U.S.