main at the court-ordered level.rnFearing that Kansas Cit- residents would not approve continuingrnthe high tax rate, the state government put the matter torna statewide vote, as an amendment to Missouri’s constitution.rnhi other words, the entire state of Missouri would decide whatrnKansas City residents would pay in property’ taxes. Outstate voters,rnweary of making payments for “desegregation” in KansasrnCitv and St. Louis, approved the amendment.rnU.S. District Judge Dean Whipple has now tentatively approvedrna two-year budget designed to end the era of multimillion-rndollar “desegregation” subsidies. The budget reflects thernloss of $100 million a year from state “desegregation” payments,rnseveral school closings, severe cuts to central administration,rnand significant reductions in busing as manv of the elaboraternand costly magnet schools are closed or turned into neighborhoodrnschools.rnMeanwhile, in St. Louis, Missouri, suburban districts hadrn”volunteered” to become part of St. Louis’s “desegregation “rnplan. They really had no choice: the federal court had made itrnclear that it would order them to take part anyway. Today, tiierncourt and the communih’ are tring to reach a “settlement” inrnthe St. Louis case. In the context of a desegregation lawsuit, arnsettlement usually means the continuation of forced busing.rnEven when school districts seem to regain their freedom, however,rnthey often find that it is all too fleeting. Cincinnati, Ohio,rnhad been quietiy returning to neighborhood schools, to the reliefrnof both black and white parents. Now the NAA.CP has filedrnfor the case to be reopened, citing low black achievementrnscores.rnThe cases just seem to multiplv, and no cit}’ learns from thernmistakes others have made. Recently in Charleston, SouthrnCarolina, a group of businessmen paid Harvard professorrnCharles Willie $175,000 to conduct a “stud'” of the Charlestonrnschool district. Willie’s recommendation? Implement “controlledrnchoice” —the same program that has destroved Rockford’srnneighborhood schools. Of course, the businessmenrnknew the results of Willie’s study before they commissionedrnhim—Willie has long been the administrator of Boston’s “controlledrnchoice” program. In The Ivory and Ebony Towers,rnWillie states, “I have never understood choosing schools forrnchildren based on neighborhoods.” Indeed, Willie is muchrnmore interested in social engineering thair in scholasticrnachievement. As he proclaims in his book, “If whites are tornovercome their debilitating belief in white superiority, theyrnmust be tutored through prolonged association with blacks whorncan serve as mentors during their formative years.”rnIs it any wonder we are a nation at risk educationalK? Is it anyrnwonder our children are not learning when attention is focusedrnon everything but education? Wlien money meant forrneducation is instead poured into the pockets of attorneys, specialrnadministrators, “masters,” bus manufacturers, andrnpetroleum companies? Wlien there are no longer neighborhoodrnschools to act as hubs of our communities? WHien race,rnethnicity, socioeconomic status, and quotas take precedencernover reading, writing, and arithmetic? When parental supportrnand input is blocked or ignored? Wlien elected school boardsrnare pushed aside to make way for mayoral control, an appointedrnschool board, or a state takeover?rnBusing in order to achieve racial balance should not occurrnunder any circumstances. Unfortunately, under current federalrnlaw, it may be ordered to remedy deliberate and intentionalrnviolations of the United States Constitution, even though thern1964 Civil Rights Act, Title IV (“Desegregation of Public Education”),rnSection 401, states:rn”Desegregation” means the assignment of shrdents tornpublic schools and within such schools without regard torntheir race, color, religion or national origin, but “desegregation”rnshall not mean the assignment of students to publicrnschools in order to overcome racial imbalance.rnSection 407 goes even further:rnNothing herein shall empower any official or court of thernUnited States to issue any order seeking to achieve arnracial balance in any school by requiring the transportationrnof pupils or students from one school to another orrnone school district to another in order to achieve suchrnracial balance.rnBut the Civil Rights Act was modified by the Scott-MansfieldrnAmendment to the 1974 Equal Educational OpportunitiesrnAct, which added the phrase, “except when pursuing violationsrnof the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”rnCourts pursuing violations, then, could order racial balance.rnNANS maintains that even under this existing law, state orrnlocal school authorities who bus or assign students to achievernracial balance in the absence of a finding of deliberate and intentionalrnviolations of the Constitution are violating the civilrnrights of those students. Moreover, school distiicts that are releasedrnfrom court control but continue to assign students tornachieve or maintain racial balance are also, under existing law,rnviolating the civil rights of students.rnRecently, however, lawsuits have started challenging theserncourt-ordered policies. The suit in Rockford by Parents AgainstrnControlled Choice is only one. Challenges have taken place orrnare taking place in San Francisco, California; Arlington, Virginia;rnJefferson County, Kentucky; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;rnMontgomery County, Maryland; Troop County, Georgia;rnDurham, North Carolina; Houston, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts;rnand Charlotte, North Carolina.rnThe results have been mixed. On April 14, a wise judgernruled that the Arlington, Virginia, district was violating thernConstitution by using racial preference to admit students.rnMeanwhile, in Massachusetts, Boston Latin School was suedrnlast vear by a white student denied admission under the school’srnquotas. The district modified its policy, and the matter was settledrnout of court. The new policy, which still involves racialrnquotas, was then challenged by another student. In May, therncourt ruled that the district had the right to consider race in itsrnadmissions policy in order to achieve and maintain diversity.rnThe ruling is being appealed.rnIn 1969, the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educationrndesegregation case, backed by the U.S. Supreme Courtrnin 1971, cleared the way for forced busing across the country.rnLike many cases over the last 30 years, the Swann “remedy” wasrnbuilt around controlled choice and magnet schools.rnLast September, a suit was filed by a father whose daughterrnwas denied admission to a magnet program because she is notrnblack. The suit maintains that the race-based admissions policyrnviolates the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the 1964 CivilrnRights Act. A federal district court judge agreed in March tornconsolidate that suit with the Swann desegregation case. Be-rn16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn