Neg Case Cards for Milliken v Bradley

Integration
Integration fails due to steering, mortgage and insurance discrimination, subsidized
housing, and gerrymandering.
Orfield 15 (Myron Orfield is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Institute for Metropolitan
Opportunity at the University of Minnesota. 2015. “Milliken, Meredith, and Metropolitan Segregation,”
UCLA Law Review <http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-2-3.pdf> SK)

Integrated
Integrated suburbs, like integrated neighborhoods, face serious challenges to their prosperity and stability.

communities have a hard time staying integrated for extended periods. “Neighborhoods
that were more than 23 percent nonwhite in 1980 were more likely to be predominately
nonwhite by 2005 than to remain integrated.”448 Illegal discrimination, in the form of
steering by real estate agents, mortgage lending and insurance discrimination, 449
subsidized housing placement, and racial gerrymandering of school attendance
boundaries is causing rapid racial change and economic decline.

Integration plans are too passive and don’t address the true structural issues- NYC
plan proves.
Taylor 17(Kate Taylor is a reporter for the New York Times covering NYC schools. June 6, 2017, “Long-Awaited
Plan for Integrating Schools Proves Mostly Small-Bore,” New York Times,
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/nyregion/long-awaited-plan-for-integrating-schools-proves-mostly-small-
bore.html> SK)

For months, New York City had promised to deliver what Mayor Bill de Blasio called a
“bigger vision” for integrating the city’s racially divided public schools. Activists pressed
their ideas. Students rallied on the steps of City Hall to demand a voice. But when the
plan landed on Tuesday, it was with a whimper. The mayor did not appear in public to talk
about it. Neither did the schools chancellor. Instead, the city’s Education Department
emailed out a news release, which did not even use the word “segregation.” The release
said the department was “committed to supporting learning environments that reflect the diversity of New York City” and laid out a

dozen policies — many of them small-bore, some of them already in place — designed
to increase diversity, which was defined as encompassing not only racial background but also traits like disability status and gender
expression. In perhaps its most concrete act, the department for the first time set specific goals for racial

and economic integration, saying that over five years it wanted to increase by 50,000
the number of students attending schools that reflect the city’s racial demographics and
to decrease by 10 percent the number of schools whose children were isolated at one
end of the economic spectrum. The department also said it wanted more schools to serve
representative numbers of students with disabilities and students who speak a language
other than English at home. It was not clear how the city would meet those goals. Besides
the policy tweaks, the city’s plan called for forming what it called a School Diversity Advisory Group and encouraging community school districts
New York City has one of the nation’s most
to come up with their own diversity plans. By some measures,

racially segregated school systems. “I did expect something a little gutsier and a little
more visionary,” said Shino Tanikawa, chairwoman of the diversity committee of the community education council for Manhattan’s
District 2. “It just feels like some of those specific actions are just tinkering around the edges

and not really addressing the bigger structural issue.”

Attempts at integration only increase the likelihood of voluntary separation.

Cashin 5 (Sheryll Cashin, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, teaches Constitutional Law, and
Race and American Law among other subjects. She writes about civil rights and race relations in
America. June 15, 2005, “The Failures of Integration,” Center for American Progress,
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/news/2005/06/15/1497/the-failures-of-
integration/> SK)

Even at the height of the civil rights era, socializing with whites was never a goal in itself
for black people, and undoubtedly for many, it is not one today. There are counter examples,
but we all know they are fairly rare. For those blacks, like myself, who attended primarily
white schools, the dominant pattern of socialization was that blacks hung with blacks.
And at most social gatherings that I attended then and those that I attend now, one race
overwhelmingly predominates. Even when I attend functions that might be described as well
integrated, I often observe the phenomenon of blacks pairing with blacks and whites
paring with whites. Obviously there are exceptions. I am necessarily writing about generalities.
But these generalities reflect certain truths—typically unspoken ones—about the limits
of integration in our nation. In 2004, then, we face a number of ironies. Despite Brown v.
Board and the civil rights laws that followed it in later decades, our schools and
neighborhoods are still decidedly segregated. The various races and ethnic groups may come
into contact in the world of work and in some diverse public spaces—the streets of large, dense cities
come to mind, as do sporting events—but we largely live and recreate apart. Most American
children learn apart. Race is still a fault line in America, and class separation is widely
accepted as the “natural” order. Americans seem to have come to a tacit, unspoken
understanding: State-ordered segregation has rightly been eliminated, but voluntary
separation is acceptable, natural, sometimes even preferable.
 School Choice
School choice fails- wealthier parents will simply send their kids elsewhere.
Okolosie 17 (Lola Okolosie is an English teacher and award-winning columnist focusing on race, politics,
education and feminism. March 24, 2017, “Segregated schools persist because parents maintain the divide,” The
Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/24/schools-segregated-parents-children-
integration> SK)

Successive governments, ever eager to sooth parental anxieties over schools have
offered us increased choice. Having a market in which parents can pick and choose
between academies, grammars, comprehensives, faith and free schools fails to consider
how this might, necessarily, lead to greater segregation. With Theresa May’s plan to expand grammar
schools, we have more choice than ever before, yet between 2011 and 2016 across 150 local authority (LA)

areas, more than half of LA primary schools became more ethnically segregated. Where
there is the option to choose, there is also the choice that many aren’t prepared to
make: an integrated school, less segregation. Take for example parents who will be
faced with the choice of sending their child to a grammar or the local comprehensive.
The comp – perceived as middling because it can’t funnel only the highest attaining
through its doors – will find that parents with greater means will choose to send their
child elsewhere. According to the Sutton Trust those from wealthier backgrounds are “around 10 times
more likely to get into a grammar school than a pupil on free school meals”. Less than
3% of grammar school pupils are eligible for free school meals, when the average
number of children entitled to them in these selective areas is 18%. Obtaining the finest
education for your child becomes as much about getting them into the “best” schools,
thus ensuring the poorest won’t be able to access them.
 Busing
Busing and rezoning is not sustainable- white flight, increased hostility, and legal
issues.
Cornish 16 (Audie Cornish is one of the hosts for NPR’s All Things Considered; she reported from
Capitol Hill for NPR News, covering issues and power in both the House and Senate and specializing in
financial industry policy. October 6, 2016, “Why Busing Didn't End School Segregation,” NPR Ed,
<http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/06/496411024/why-busing-didnt-end-school-segregation>
SK)

A couple things happen that make it difficult to sustain busing programs into the '80s and '90s.
One is the tremendous amount of white flight that happens in cities like Boston, so
there just simply aren't enough white students to go around to have meaningful school
desegregation. This is true in Chicago, in Los Angeles, in New York. The other thing that happens is
busing placed a tremendous burden on black students and on students of color. In most
cases, they were the ones that were asked to travel to the suburbs, travel sometimes to
hostile neighborhoods. For many parents, that simply isn't worth it after a number of years. If not
busing, what were the other ways that schools tried to desegregate in modern times? There were a couple of popular plans. One would be
magnet schools — trying to funnel resources into schools primarily in communities of color that would attract white students back to those
schools. Those have received different amounts of success in different communities, but it's been a program that has some merit and has been
popular for good reason. Another would be to simply redraw zoning lines. I think one of the reasons that busing got so
much attention is that it seemed very inconvenient. They're talking about busing kids a
half-hour out of the city. In many communities, if you simply redraw the zoning lines you can accomplish school desegregation.
It's still tremendously controversial, but it can still produce meaningful school integration in places that have tried it. For schools that

have tried rezoning, taking race into account has led to trouble with the law. Exactly — there
are two issues. One, the Supreme Court has consistently handed down decisions that say that

race can't be the primary factor in drawing these school zoning lines. The court does not want to see
race be the deciding factor in these school desegregation issues. The other factor is simply a matter of political

will and how much white parents will go for it. Unfortunately, it's the case that across
the country, white parents simply don't want to send their kids to schools with large
numbers of African-American or Latino students — even if they consider themselves to be liberal in theory, or in
the abstract, they are in favor of integration. When push comes to shove ... they oppose any sort of

meaningful school integration.

Busing is too inconvenient and sets up children for failure.
Mogk 15 (John Mogk served on the law review and was elected a member of the Order of the Coif; he
practiced law with Shearman & Sterling in New York City. He joined the Wayne Law faculty to focus
upon critical issues facing America's distressed urban communities. July 25, 2015, “Busing failed then,
would fail now,” Detroit Free Press- part of USA Today Network,
<http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/07/24/desegregation-detroit-
schools/30645637/> SK)
Butbusing would subject many Detroit children to long hours of travel weekly. It would
also place parents of Detroit children long distances from their schools, teachers and
administrators in a city where many families don’t have easy access to transportation.
Moreover, children performing below grade level may not get the special attention that
they need, setting them up for failure. Detroit neighborhoods would lose schools as
community resources because most schools would have to be closed. This would
accelerate the dismantling of city neighborhoods as families would come under pressure to leave Detroit to be
closer to their children’s schools.

Busing leads to the deterioration of neighborhood schools and classroom quality.

(Ted Van Dyk is the author of Heroes, Hacks and Fools, University of Washington Press, 2007, a memoir
of national politics from 1960 onward. He served as assistant to Vice President Humphrey in the Johnson
White House and was a senior policy advisor to Democratic national candidates and his party over a 40-
year period. August 6, 2015, “School Busing Didn’t Work. And to Say So Isn’t Racist,” Politico Magazine,
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/school-busing-civil-rights-121077> SK)
This was the case even in liberal Washington, D.C. My wife and I had two sons enrolled in a Northwest Washington elementary school when
busing began in the city. School buses would deliver black kids from Southwest D.C. at the Janney
School front door at the morning bell. The same buses picked up the same kids,
immediately at the end of classes, and took them back to Southwest. They did not
participate in any pre- or after-school activity. No black parents took a bus or drove
from Southwest to attend evening PTA meetings or to otherwise participate in school-
related activity. The quality of classroom instruction fell off markedly. Fourth- and fifth-
grade neighborhood students, for instance, were repeating material learned in earlier grades
because teachers found their bused classmates had not yet received it. Not surprisingly,
parents from the neighborhood began looking for private schools for their kids or
moved to Maryland or Virginia suburbs—not because of racism but because their neighborhood
school no longer was working. To varying degree, the same thing was happening in other places where busing had been
instituted. Elected officials—even those strongly in favor of civil rights—began to conclude that busing was a well-meant

mistake. Presidential candidate George McGovern, in 1971, proposed to his advisers, of which I was one, that he would straightforwardly
take an anti-busing position. We prevailed on him not to do so because we believed that the issue then was so emotion-laden that busing
proponents would misunderstand his opposition.
 Util
Preventing extinction outweighs structural violence
Bostrom 12
(Mar 6, Nick, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, recipient of the 2009 Gannon
Award, “We're Underestimating the Risk of Human Extinction,” interview with Ross Andersen, freelance
writer in D.C., http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-underestimating-the-
risk-of-human-extinction/253821/)

Some have argued that we ought to be directing our resources toward humanity's existing
problems, rather than future existential risks, because many of the latter are highly
improbable. You have responded by suggesting that existential risk mitigation may in fact be a dominant
moral priority over the alleviation of present suffering. Can you explain why? Bostrom: Well suppose you
have a moral view that counts future people as being worth as much as present people. You

might say that fundamentally it doesn't matter whether someone exists at the current time or at some

future time, just as many people think that from a fundamental moral point of view, it doesn't matter where
somebody is spatially---somebody isn't automatically worth less because you move them to the moon or to Africa or something.
A human life is a human life. If you have that moral point of view that future generations matter in proportion to their
population numbers, then you get this very stark implication that existential risk mitigation has a much higher

utility than pretty much anything else that you could do. There are so many people that could come
into existence in the future if humanity survives this critical period of time---we might
live for billions of years, our descendants might colonize billions of solar systems, and there could be billions and
billions times more people than exist currently. Therefore, even a very small reduction in the
probability of realizing this enormous good will tend to outweigh even immense benefits
like eliminating poverty or curing malaria, which would be tremendous under ordinary standards.