WASHINGTON WATCH: DESEGREGATION JUDGE HURTS OUTSTATE

"Last year in Missouri, 45 percent of the K-12 money in the state went to 9 percent of the students. Students throughout other parts of Missouri today are the ones that are suffering with less opportunities than they would otherwise have if that $400 million a year that is going to desegregation was being spent out there. We need to think about those kids, too."

-- Jay Nixon, attorney general of Missouri

There is a conceit that pervades among many judges in the United States that social policy made by them is inherently superior to policy made by elected representatives of the people. It is an idea that would be amusing were it not for the damage judicial activism has caused in this country during the past 40 years. Which is not to say that representative government doesn't make mistakes. It does, and gross ones at that.

But these mistakes are more easily corrected than those committed by judges who, thinking they are doing society a favor, overstep the separation of powers. Unfortunately, the only ones who can correct the mistakes of these modern-day "enlightened" despots are their colleagues higher up the bench. It is an endeavor that not only takes exorbitant amounts of time and money, but that also must struggle against the judicial tradition of honoring previous decisions, even when they are wrong. Meanwhile, the court's original mistake festers.

Nothing proves the point as well as Missouri's costly involvement with Judge Russell G. Clark, who turned an original injustice of the Kansas City Metropolitan School District toward black school children into an even greater injustice toward blacks, whites and everyone else in the state.

The history

In 1977, more than two decades after the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, segregated schools still existed in Kansas City. This marked a stain in the history of that city and this state. Several students sued the school district for violating the Constitution, and Judge Clark appropriately ruled in their favor. In his decision, Clark held the state responsible for establishing the segregated schools in the first place, as well as for failing to act with "all deliberate speed" to remedy the situation, as required by law. These findings were important because they established liability for the state and not just the district.

Clark also ruled that segregation had "caused a systemwide reduction in student achievement in the schools," as well as "the departure of white students ... to private schools and to the suburbs." However, Clark failed to offer factual proof establishing these points, and they have since become the center of much controversy. Remedying these assertions, nevertheless, became the guiding philosophy to Clark's eventual plan to desegregate the schools.

Convinced that "adequate resources, sufficient staff developments, and proper teaching methods" would solve the problem, Judge Clark ordered the state and the district to implement a number of specific programs, as well as the establishment of magnet schools, capital improvements and staff development.

As time went by and test scores, graduation rates and the black-white ratio actually grew worse, Judge Clark began expanding his orders and their expense from (ital) adequate and sufficient (unital) to experimental and extravagant. He authorized a series of salary increases for teachers and non-instructional staff, including janitors and cooks; ordered tax increases for citizens in the county, bypassing local authorities; and helped design schools now infamous for their lavish facilities. Altogether, his actions cost Missouri taxpayers $1.3 billion and counting. Still, student performance on standardized tests remained unchanged.

Until these test scores rise to the national average, Judge Clark says the court will maintain control of the schools, no matter the cost to the taxpayers of Missouri -- and regardless if, as a result, students in places like Cape Girardeau, Jackson and Hayti have to do with much less. The state of Missouri, now represented by Attorney General Jay Nixon, protests. Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard his case.

To be continued.

Jon K. Rust is a Washington-based writer for the Southeast Missourian.