Orfield’s Argument (Part I)
https://primetimeessay.com/topics/film/
This paper explains that Orfield is making an argument for entitlement: All students are entitled to the same educational opportunities and that measures must be taken to ensure that children, especially black children, are not forsaken these opportunities. The author feels that Orfield fails to make the distinction between racial segregation and the social or market forces that compel poor blacks to live in the same neighborhood. The author cites that in the two cases of Grutter vs. Bollinger and Gratz vs. Bollinger, the Supreme Court questioned the very notion that the government should allow state-funded institutions to maintain race-based methods of selection to insure the diversity of an applicant pool.
“Orfield is quick to demonize Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, who are all coincidentally Republican conservatives, for trying to turn back the clock on desegregation. Orfield finally does refer to bussing in the context of the Green decision and the Keyes and Swann decision, he calls it “student transportation as a means for integration.” (pg. 6) Because most students of this phenomenon know the process as ‘bussing,’ one can assume that his failure to use this term is deliberate. However, we are left unsure as to whether his deliberate omission of the term is due to a possible negative connotation of the word, or a general distaste for cliches. To omit the word ‘bussing,’ given its negative connotation in the eyes of those that have live with and experienced it, would be to engage in a shrewd charade of semantic manipulation. We are inclined to argue in favor of objectivity in that he also eschews the phrase ‘turn back the clock.’ He cleverly sidesteps this one by naming the chapter “Turning Back to Desegregation,” leaving out the beloved clock.”