Apologies for linking to the Guardian for this article, but the US press seems to be pretty bad at covering it. USA Today has the lite version, but read Gary Younge's article for the full story of how the referendum to repeal segregationist language in the Alabama constitution has failed. Here's what the constitution says right now, and what it will continue to say, since a majority of voters wants to see it unchanged:
Separate schools shall be provided for white and coloured children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race.
Those who opposed change, including Roy "10 Commandments" Moore, claim that oh, no, they're not racist at all; they simply want to make sure that education is a privilege and not a right for Alabaman kids. Here's the logic: if you guarantee a state education in the state constitution, then trial lawyers might come along and hold you to that guarantee. And we all hate trial lawyers, right? Therefore, we should vote to retain the segregationist language.
Then again, as Younge points out,
A statute banning interracial marriage in the state was struck down only four years ago by 59% to 41%, with a majority of whites voting against the change.
I'm pretty sure that if I were a black Alabaman, I'd take this referendum result as yet another slap in the face. Although I would be interested in the opinion of New York-based Alabama exiles on the matter.
Felix, as I explained in another post, education is funded and controlled locally in the U.S. and that's a good thing. Numerous states which were unwise enough to place a "right" to education in their constitutions have seen an erosion in local funding and control, thanks to busybody lawsuits and activist judges. Alabamans are correct to be worried about this, and it was this wording which sank the amendment.
Further, I don't see how one person can have a positive right to something that must be provided by someone else's labor.
Posted by: Sterling on November 30, 2004 07:42 AMSterling, please explain how that is linked to the particular clause on separate schools based on skin color.
Was the amendment geared solely at this one sentence, or did it get burdened with unrelated agendas, which prompted its sinking?
Jame -
If you want to excise a bigoted clause from the constitution, then you put a referendum on the ballot to repeal that clause. On the other hand, if you want to make a backdoor attempt to erode local control of schools, then you hide a rights clause for public education within a feel good initiative that nobody could possibly disagree with. It's a bait and switch.
They thought no one would dare campaign against this referendum because the part about repealing the segregation clause is so obviously proper. But it was a scam, and the people of Alabama saw through it.
Posted by: Sterling on November 30, 2004 02:43 PMi too hate the way state propositions are misused to push unrelated agendas, however, even if that's the case it doesn't say much for the people of alabama if they can't be bothered to put a specific referendum only on the segregation language on the ballot as sterling suggested. i hope they will now to call the bluff of roy moore and his ilk.
Posted by: Marc on November 30, 2004 02:53 PMIt's worth noting that the clause in contention has no force of law - it was overturned in 1954 at the federal level by the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. The clause is entirely vestigial and its removal (or retention) entirely symbolic.
If the ballot had been without strings it would have won by a gigantic margin.
Posted by: Sterling on November 30, 2004 03:04 PMGigantic margins? You haven't lived that long in cracker-land, white boy. I'd bet a year's salary that the break would be 95-5 in support by blacks, with a 55-45 against by whites. Blacks are still disproportionately large populations in the south (relative to other areas of the country), so when Georgia, say, has a referendum to remove a terrorist image from its state flag, the black population supports it overwhelmingly, but the white population is pretty evenly divided, at best, so it seems close. Once you parse the numbers, you still see a near or clear majority of whites voting pro-ignorance, pro-hatred. Which is what we expect of inbred terrorists, just like you get from their darker kindered spirits in the mid-east.
Posted by: Mr. 99th Percentile on November 30, 2004 04:43 PMand yet the democrats think they lost because of "values." they lost because a good deal of people in the red states think they're a bunch of negro-lovers.
Posted by: the crossfader on November 30, 2004 05:31 PMMaybe it's time to start talking about a pre-emptive invasion of Alabama. You never know what kind of sedetion they might be brewing up. Why do they hate us? Must be our love of freedom. And boo-tay.
Posted by: Mr. 99th Percentile on November 30, 2004 05:36 PMAs a Black girl born in the "Magic City" of Birmingham now living in New York...I know there's never been such a thing as "separate but equal". Not only does the RACIST language need to change but the CLASSIST structure of public education where only the kids that live in neighborhoods where the property taxes are high to properly fund schools have a decent education. Race and Class live together in perfect harmony like "Ebony and Ivory".---McCartney and Wonder
Posted by: Nichelle on December 6, 2004 09:16 PMjust curious, how do you like living in NYC? i was born and raised here and find that for the most part, people of different races and backgrounds mingle pretty well socially, yet that dipshit Sterling says that New York is one of the most segregated towns in the US. I'm white (half jewish and half wasp) and was raised with friends of all colors. most of my friends growing up were either black or latino. when i go out to bars and parties its always a mixed crowd. whats your experience?
Posted by: X on December 6, 2004 09:27 PM