Keeping the promise alive

Nearly two years ago, I wrote a piece in honor of the sixtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. While Brown tore down the legal barriers that kept our schools segregated, separate and unequal education in the United States has nonetheless persisted for decades. By and large, black and white children continue to attend different schools, as do rich and poor children. Racially and socioeconomically homogeneous neighborhoods produce continuing de facto segregation in our schools. Meanwhile, courts weary of busing battles imposed increasingly tighter constraints on what progressive-minded school districts can do to lean against the rising tide of segregation.

It’s a dreary state of affairs.  Yet I held out hope that schools could still strive for the promise of Brown by getting creative about how they think about integration. Districts could rely on socioeconomic data and the racial composition of neighborhoods as proxies for diversity, taking these characteristics into account when assigning students to schools.

The city of Berkeley was at the leading edge of this effort, carving up the city into more than 400 mini-neighborhoods and coding each based on its relative disadvantage. It then factored these codes into its student assignment algorithm, yielding impressive classroom diversity.

This type of program, I wrote, proved that many communities still have “tools at their disposal that can ensure that segregated neighborhoods don’t result in segregated schools.” There was still hope for the promise of Brown.

That hope gleams a little brighter today. The Century Foundation recently released a report finding that at least 91 different school districts and charter networks weigh socioeconomic criteria in their assignment plans in order to cultivate more diverse schools. This is more than double the number of districts that considered these criteria just eight years ago.

These districts employ a variety of strategies to push back against segregation. Some expand their attendance zones to capture a more diverse mix of neighborhoods. Others use district-wide school choice programs to scramble the connection between housing patterns and school attendance. Still others rely on specialized thematic magnet schools to draw voluntary student integration.

These efforts are vital and valuable to providing a good education. The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has one of the nation’s longest-running “controlled choice” socioeconomic integration programs. The Century Foundation notes that under this program, Cambridge has seen “seen steadily rising scores on state and national tests, as well as elevated high school graduation rates.”

This is consistent with a bounty of evidence showing that students benefit immensely from socioeconomic integration. In 2010, researchers studied the academic performance of students living in low-income housing in Montgomery County, Maryland. They found that low-income housing students who attended economically integrated schools significantly outperformed those who attended high-poverty schools in reading and math.   Other studies back up these academic gains, finding that socioeconomic integration improves graduation rates and college enrollment, and boosts test scores.

Because socioeconomic status also correlates closely to race, socioeconomic integration plans have the added benefit of breaking down racial segregation in schools. This too is hugely beneficial for schools and students. Integration has been found to promote racial tolerance and better prepare students for success in a diverse workforce.   Students who attend integrated K-12 schools have also been found to develop stronger critical thinking skills in college.   Integration also has historically led to higher lifetime earnings for minorities. In a study of black children born between 1950 and 1970, researchers found that those who spent at least five years in a desegregated school earned 25% more during adulthood than those who did not.

Given these academic and lifetime gains, it’s no wonder more and more districts are taking proactive steps to achieve integration. And these districts recently welcomed a powerful (if belated) ally to their fight.

In his final budget, Obama proposed a $120 million “Stronger Together” initiative that would help school districts invest in fostering socioeconomic diversity. The initiative is structured as a competition where local districts compete over a limited pool of grant money by submitting plans to combat socioeconomic isolation in schools.

This proposed initiative is something of a do-over of Race to the Top. The 2009 stimulus education program, which awarded grants to states based on their adoption of certain school reforms, inexplicably left school integration out of its rubric of grant-worthy reforms. Now, with a new Education Secretary who has been a long-time champion of school integration, Obama is proposing to dangle federal financial incentives in front of districts to encourage more integration.

Of course, “Stronger Together” will not soon become law. Despite the clear benefits integration has for kids, Obama’s plan is dead on arrival in Congress. Congressional Republicans won’t even give his budget a hearing and have rejected it sight unseen.

But in his final year in office, Obama has put school integration back on the table as an important education reform worth fighting for. It’s a fight that schools across the country are increasingly taking up on their own, resisting the harmful effects of segregating kids from one another, and keeping the promise of Brown alive.

Advertisements

Executive realities and immigration

The Supreme Court will hear a legal challenge to President Obama’s executive action granting deportation relief to millions of law-abiding unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. The challenged executive action, known as “DAPA” (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents), allows parents of children who received protection from deportation under an earlier Obama executive action to apply for such protection themselves. Those who successfully receive deferred action from deportation are then eligible to apply to legally work in the United States.

Conservatives roundly went ballistic in response to this convergence of humanitarian immigration policy and liberal executive power, calling the president’s program “domestic caesarism,” accusing him of unilaterally decreeing “stealth amnesty.” The legal challenge followed a similar tack, asserting that DAPA amounted to a power grab against the will of Congress and a disregard of the president’s duty to take care that immigration laws be faithfully executed. In short, these opponents of executive action argue that the president’s programs are both unprecedented and usurp congressional power.

This is nonsense. As I wrote shortly before the president announced DAPA, these immigration actions do little more than formalize existing law enforcement priorities while adding a modicum of humanitarian dignity — allowing family units to remain intact, and allowing those who won’t be targeted for deportation to earn an aboveboard, non-exploitative living.

But don’t take my word for it. A group of ex-immigration and Homeland Security officials submitted an impressive brief with the Supreme Court in support of the president’s executive actions stating much the same. They show that the president’s immigration actions are hardly unprecedented, but rather follow a long line of similar actions by most other modern presidents. Moreover, these actions are fully within the reach of presidential power to enforce our immigration laws and protect national security.

For instance, President Eisenhower twice took executive action to authorize the admission of whole classes of immigrants into the United States. In 1956, he allowed roughly one thousand foreign-born children who had been adopted by American citizens abroad to gain entry into the United States. While this circumvented immigration quotas enacted by Congress, Eisenhower argued it was justified to keep families together — particularly for armed service members who adopted children while stationed abroad.

Eisenhower also granted U.S. admission to Cubans fleeing communism after Castro’s revolution. This program was continued successively by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.

Most notably, President Reagan enacted a deferred action program strikingly similar to President Obama’s. Following the 1986 immigration reform law passed by Congress, Reagan launched a “Family Fairness Program.” This program gave deferred action to family members of legalized aliens.

This program went directly against the reform law enacted by Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee Report accompanying the legislation stated: “the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization” and “will be required to ‘wait in line.’” In fact, a legislative amendment fixing this family split was considered and rejected by Congress.

Undeterred by signals to the contrary from Congress, the Reagan administration gave deportation relief to these family members anyway. Reagan recognized the distinction between granted permanent legal status (which only Congress could do, and opted not to) and merely deferring deportation (which his Attorney General was empowered to do). Like Eisenhower, he was also moved by the humanitarian case for maintaining families.

This is strikingly similar to President Obama’s executive actions. Congress considered and rejected the DREAM Act, which would have created a pathway to citizenship for certain immigrant children. Obama then took executive action to provide this class of immigrants with the next best thing: deferred deportation. And to keep families together, he followed this policy up with DAPA, which would protect these children’s parents from deportation, too.

President George H.W. Bush expanded Family Fairness in 1990 to reach even more families. In response, Congress actually passed legislation grant legal status to family members, going further than what Reagan and Bush could do through executive action.

Most other modern presidents, including Ford, Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush, have employed some variant of deferred action. This is a practical necessity to efficiently enforce the law because of the scarce and insufficient resources that Congress allocates to our immigration agencies.

But deferred action also protects national security and public safety. Those granted protection from deportation feel safe to emerge from the shadows and trust in society’s institutions, like police and hospitals. “Communities are safer,” the brief argues, “when undocumented immigrants who are either victims of crimes or witnesses to crimes feel secure enough to report the crimes to the police rather than avoid contact for fear of being deported.”

It is also well within the executive branch’s power to enforce the law in a way that furthers humanitarian interests, like keeping families together. “Immigration officials at all levels have been called upon for decades to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a manner that is faithful to the rule of law without sacrificing the preservation of, and respect for, family units to the greatest extent practicable,” the brief reminds us.

These former DHS officials bring a reality check to a needlessly overheated policy debate by grounding President Obama’s executive actions in our history. These actions simply continue a long tradition of the president using humanitarian and national security interests to prioritize which classes of unauthorized immigrants to target for deportation.

One more note on this Supreme Court challenge that isn’t in the DHS officials’ brief. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at past uses of deferred action and determined that these programs are usually adopted in “response to war, civil unrest, or natural disaster.” The court determined that none of these exigencies were at play here.

However, Central America is in the grips of a growing humanitarian crisis. It is the most deadly region in the world, as violent transnational criminal street gangs operate with impunity throughout the region. They coerce young boys into joining their ranks and come after those who resist. They rape and murder, leaving bloodshed in the streets and terror in the hearts of peaceable neighbors. Governments have been able to quell or control the violence, and indeed, law enforcement is often implicated in aiding the gangs.

This crisis has built up over years, and it was substantially driving migrant flows into the United States. It’s also what makes the ethics of the decision to deport so fraught. The degree of violence faced by people in Central America is rising to the level of an international emergency, and it’s becoming increasingly hard to morally distinguish Central American refugees from those fleeing Syria.

This is the geopolitical context of the president’s executive actions. By all means, let’s focus our limited immigration resources on removing criminals and security threats. But the situation in the home countries of these migrants makes it all the harder to, in good conscience, oppose a policy designed to give some small legitimacy and relief to law-abiding families in the United States.