A packed house greeted a speaker dedicated in trying to decipher the changes that have taken place in American society since the 1950s ruling in favor of desegregation in the Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education, overturning the long-standing stigma of separate but equal.
“Brown v. Board was the most important decision … in the [United States] (in the 20th century),” lecturer Gary Orfield, professor of Education and Social Policy at Harvard University, said.
Throughout his lecture, Orfield presented evidence from academic studies showing desegregation in public schools at a decline, adding that this issue is important and should be talked about at universities, but “politicians don’t want to talk about these issues.”
Orfield briefly touched on the history of Brown v. Board, clarifying how it mostly chronicles the story of the South, which passed racist laws to keep blacks out of predominately white public schools.
“It was apartheid in the South,” Orfield said, adding that directly following the Supreme Court decision, no southern state immediately changed.
“Everyone knows about Brown (v. Board),” Orfield said. “But it was not until the 1964 Civil Rights Act that desegregation actually took place in the South.”
Though desegregation in public schools occurred rather swiftly in the five years following the Civil Rights Act, recently trends towards resegregation have emerged, especially in the Midwest — the least-diverse region of the United States. Orfield explained his point of view, describing how midwestern school districts are often found guilty of segregation, but only when brought to court. The fact that court battles with such cities are extremely expensive deters would-be court battles with those who feel wrongfully set apart.
“Every northern city that was brought to court, was found guilty of (not desegregating its school districts),” Orfield said.
Orfield went on to explain how some of the underlying problems in desegregation have to do with gentrification and biased housing. Orfield relayed a story that Detroit suburbs would not allow African American people to move in, forcing them to use city schools, creating a cycle of keeping inner-city schools segregated. Orfield also drew the correlation between race and poor schools and poverty and poor schools.
Orfield also explained the Midwest had the highest percentage of minority students in “apartheid schools” (schools with near 100 percent minority population) of more than 27 percent, where the South has the least. This is “shocking” for being in the whitest states, according to Orfield. He also added that equal dollars going into a school system does not provide equal results, drawing the conclusion a student’s background is a necessary yard stick to measure how he or she will perform in school, which will not change until the housing situation changes.
“There really is not much leadership on these things,” Orfield said, calling on universities, teachers and journalists to investigate the issue of poor, segregated schools and bring it to the forefront of domestic policy.
Michael Fultz, a University of Wisconsin history of education and educational policy studies professor, described the inequity in education as an important public issue and agreed with much of what Orfield had to say.
“This is what a university is for,” Fultz said on the issue of publicly discussing social topics.
“I don’t believe in ‘shoulds,’ but I believe teachers should engage in these issues,” Fultz responded when asked if students planning on majoring in education should care for these issues. “If it can’t help, it certainly won’t hurt. And the aim is to help kids.”
Orfield’s lecture was part of a UW presentation by the departments of educational policy studies and curriculum and instruction celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board. The conference continues with events, discussions and lectures tomorrow, free to the public. A full schedule is available at www.education.wisc.edu/eps/news/.
