A CHARGE of racism is about the most damning accusation that can be made against a person in today's society. Yet many have had no qualms about throwing around the word with regard to the electorate state of Alabama in recent weeks, which has had its name dragged through the mud ever since the state voted down Amendment Two, which would have eliminated segregationist language in that state's constitution. Critics declare that the vote is proof that racism is still alive in America, implying that Alabama's white majority wishes to return to the days of Jim Crow and reimpose segregation and other oppressive measures on its black citizens. "If you believed the days of racism were over, think again," announces Arizona State Press columnist Lily Yan. The Washington Post included a picture of segregationist governor George Wallace standing outside the schoolhouse door alongside its coverage of the case. The message is unmistakable: the defeat of Amendment Two was provoked by racism and lingering resentment of blacks on the part of Alabama voters.
But the charges hurled against Alabama's voters are ludicrous at best and slanderous at worst. To understand why, we must look past the imagery and rhetoric around Amendment Two and look at what it really would have done.
Much of Amendment Two was perfectly uncontroversial. Provisions would have removed language from the Alabama constitution mandating segregated schools and poll taxes. Removing these would have only been symbolic, as they were struck down by federal courts decades ago. Yet symbolism has its claims, and all sides agree that this language should go. Alabama Christian Coalition head John Giles, the leader of the opposition to Amendment Two, declared after the vote, "The Christian Coalition will lead the way to remove the racist language in the next election."
But that was only part of the Amendment. Another provision of Amendment Two, repealing a provision declaring that the constitution contains no guarantee of a right to public education for anyone, white or black, in the state of Alabama, could have had practical consequences, and that part understandably generated controversy (there is currently no federal constitutional right to an education). Opponents of Amendment Two seized on this part of the amendment, declaring that it would lead to judicial control of public schools and tax increases to finance a guarantee of public school education.
The Washington Post declared that this argument "was ridiculed by most of the state's newspapers and by legions of legal experts." Yet it is those who insist that the repeal of this provision could have no effect who are advancing the ridiculous argument.
How do I know this? Because a state circuit court judge in 1993 improbably declared, in express language to the contrary, that students in Alabama had a right under the state constitution to a well-funded education. This ruling was upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court in 1997, and led the state school board to propose a 50 percent funding increase for Alabama schools, at a cost to taxpayers of $1.4 billion dollars. In a bizarre move, the Alabama Supreme Court reopened the case in 2002, declaring that the 1993 ruling was not judicially enforceable.
This ruling was especially strange because judicial decisions not enforceable by the judiciary are almost unheard-of in American law. Ordinarily, courts have broad powers to enforce their rulings, and at times this has led courts to take control of public school systems and order tax increases. Fifteen states are currently grappling with these sorts of lawsuits, including the state of New York, where a state judge this year ordered a $4 billion to $10 billion increase in school funding. In such a heated legal environment, Alabama voters legitimately feared that adoption of Amendment Two would have boded ill for them in fighting to retain control of their own public schools.
We can not fault voters for believing that their elected representatives should retain control over maintenance of public schools and the power of taxation, not a court. For example, many maintain that increased funds are not the cure for inadequate schools, and their views should be fully considered in a legislative body. The state of our schools should be a call to action on the part of citizens, not courts.
Whatever the symbolic value of passage of Amendment Two may have been, the threat of court control of public schools in Alabama was a real one. Far from approving of its racist past, Alabama voted in the interests of democratic self-government in the area of public education.
Noah Peters column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at npeters@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
