Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

May 15, 1980 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1980-05-15

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4-Thursday, May 15, 1980-The Michigan Daily

Time to
join the,
By Steve Hook

Atlanta decision
needs explanation
T HE U.S. SUPREME COURT Monday upheld a
lower court's ruling which struck down legal
efforts to combine Atlanta's predominantly black
school district with surrounding suburban school
The Court's opinion consisted of one line that af-
firmed the lower court ruling. It gave the public no
idea why the Court considered the creation of a
"super" school district an inappropriate measure
to remedy racial segregation inthe metropolitan
Atlanta area.
Twenty-five years after the landmark
desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education,
many individual school districts across the country
are racially integrated. But segregation between
school districts still remains, and the Atlanta
model, where the inner city is 90 per cent black and
the surrounding suburbs are mostly white, is a
prototype for cities and suburbs nationwide.
Currently there are inter-district desegregation
cases in courts across the country. People don't
know what criteria warrant combining school
districts to create "super" districts. They need to
know more about this controversial issue than a
one sentence opinion from the Court.
The opinions from the two multi-district cases
that have come before the Court previously in-
dicate that combining many school districts into
one is warranted only when government officials
have committed segregative acts across school
district lines. In the Atlanta case there was much
evidence that both school board and housing of-
ficials had committed unconstitutional acts and ac-
tually transferred students across district lines in
order to maintain the segregative system. If the
Court has altered its criteria, it should inform the
public with something more substantial than a one-
sentence opinion.
As the Court indicated last month in a ruling on a
desegregation case in Delaware, creation of a
massive system that combines suburban school
districts with inner city school districts can be an
answer toward eliminating racial segregation in
the schools and making public education equitable
for everyone.
Segregated housing patterns which exist in
almost every major city did not come. about ac-
cidentally. In most metropolitan areas government
officials legally steered blacks into one residential
area and whites into another. Schools were often
able to maintan segregation by gerrymandering
district lines. Given these constitutional violations,
a remedy which combines several districts is most
There are many inconveniences with the creation
of a massive school district, including the busing of
young children to schools miles away from their
homes. But if the Constitution is to be taken
seriously, a little inconvenience is worth correcting
two centuries of racial segregation.

... an incumbent's advantage
The current political dialogue
among observers seems based on
the premise that the presidential
campaigns are all but over, and .
the sights now seem firmly fixed
on the final target-Election Day.
What looked to be a fierce, knock
'em down, drag out fight to the
end in both parties has become an
unexpected walkaway for Ronald
Reagan and President Jimmy
With this in mind, the frantic
rush is on among the "perceptic-
ve" onlookers to make their bids
early enough to say, rather than
be told, 'I told you so.' To the
American jounalists who still
have a copy hole to fill, and who
don't have the other condidates to
kick around anymore, it is
fashionable now to look down the
road to the final confrontation.
tions: Incumbents rarely get
beaten, but Reagan is no
fluke-indeed, he may be our
next president. A predictable line
to be taken by analysts with a
flair for the dramatic-the time
is now to board the "Ronald
Reagan May Indeed Be Our Next
President" bandwagon.
Perhaps it is because the
thought is so surprising, if not
shocking and absurd, that a man
so conservative could be
seriously envisioned at the head
of the table in a Cabinet meeting
just six years, one full ad-
ministration, after Richard
Nixon virtually destroyed the
credibility of the Republican Par-
ty, the presidency, and the United
States in one horrible swoop. But
there was John Chancellor last
week, on assignment along the
campaign trail, telling us that
"Yes, Ronald Reagan could be
our next president," in the sur-
prised tone of a man who doesn't
seem to quite believe it himself.
Even if) the understanding is not
totally complete, it seems more
fashionable among informed
onlookers to predict that the in-
cumbent will be thrown out of of-
fice, instead of waltzing his way
to re-election with the same effor-
tlessness that marked his stom-
ping of Ted Kennedy.
The political observers who
forsee an uneventful capturing of
re-election for the president, al -
beit in relative silence, would
seem to have a good case. They
have history, and a pair of
curiously matched opponents,
that may indicate that such a
result is in the works. Between
President Carter's inherent ad-
vantage as President, most
notably his virtually uninhibited
control of the press, and
Reagan's tendency to make
erroneous, misleading, and at

times, inept comments, not to
mention disturbing, questionably
founded warlike platitudes, the
scary image of Ex-Governor
Reagan in the White House may
be mercifully spared.
WE'RE ALL aware that
history sided with the incumbent,
and especially so in stormy
times, when the forces of evil
threaten to swallow the land. As
this winter's anticlimactic
primaries speeded by, President
Carter had a legitimate excuse to
silence dissent in Washington,
and along the trail, Kennedy, the
president's only legitimate op-
ponent, learned early that he bet-
ter not second-guess out leader in
such stormy times. Early, but
according to many observers, too
late, his predicted romp to the
nomination was already
faltering, and his untimely
criticism of the Shah may have
finished off whatever true hope
remained. The hostage crisis in
Iran, and the resulting dragnet on
public debate, had their toll on
Republican candidates, and
future events may continue the
The hostage crisis, like the
Afghanistan crisis and the
newfound, post-Tito uncertainties
in Yugoslavia, should continue to
inherently benefit the president,
and his past and present suppor-
ters are not likely to back away
now. Barring a colossal botch by
President Carter, he can only'
gain from the Iranian dilemma.
A rescue attempt, proven vir-
tually impossible due to the limits
of geography versus technology,
was applauded by Reagan, who
asked, "Why didn't we try this
before?" (i.e., why don't we try
again?) The President can, with.
Reagan's blessing, attempt
another rescue, even if it ends in
a likely bloody, death-filled con-
clusion. According to the sen-
timent expressed before, 'at least
the damn thing would be over.'
And if the president can manage
a peaceful way out, the sub-
sequent relief and gratitude
would strongly boost the
president's political fortunes,

... our next president?
while making Reagan look like a
bloodthirsty fool.
Reagan will continue to base
his appeal, on exhortations about
a get-tough America, and about
unleashing business to save the
faltering economy. President
Carter's record, which by
anyone's standards is imperfect
at best, will bear the brunt of con-
tinuous, craggy-smiled jabs by
Reagan. But despite the cheering
crowds which will surround
Reagan in California and other
states in the coming weeks, it
seems doubtful that the majority
of voters are ready for his
hawkish, big-business approach.
The aggressive international sen-
timents lhe espouses seems
dubious, as most Americans have
expressed reservations about the
legitimacy of recent "crisis"-in
Cuba, Iran and Afghanistan. And
once these voters learn of the
costs of Reagan's business-
oriented domestic platform (e.g.,
curtailed social programs,
reduced funding for education,
etc.), further steam can be ex-
pected to be taken out of the
Next-President bandwagon.
Carter, whose optimistic ap-
proach brought him the faith of
the majority four years ago, will
be utilized more than ever, to be
reported in living color by a
vulnerable press. With his
fatherly, sensitive tone that 'un-
derscores his appeal, he will ask
Americans to let him "complete
his mission," and explain that
many of his problems as
president-the Iran crisis,
tripling OPEC prices and the
resulting economic fallout, Three
Mile Island-are legacies of a
previous administration, and will
take more time to rectify. To this
observer, the times are more
conducive to this appeal,
especially Reagan's potential to
self-destruct politically through
fallacious statements, and to
alienate the electorate with
groundless war talk.
Steve Hook is a co-editor of
the Daily's New Student

Editorial policies
Unsigned editorials appearing on the
left side of this page represent a majority
opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board.
Cartoons frequently appear on both
the left and right side of the page; they do
not necessarily represent Daily opinions.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan