Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a color-blind society. Eric Holder thinks his job is to make sure King’s dream never comes true.
From The Wall Street Journal:
Give Eric Holder credit for cognitive racial dissonance. On nearly the same day the Attorney General spoke in Washington to honor the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech, his Justice Department sued to block the educational dreams of minority children in Louisiana.
Late last week, Justice asked a federal court to stop 34 school districts in the Pelican State from handing out private-school vouchers so kids can escape failing public schools. Mr. Holder’s lawyers claim the voucher program appears “to impede the desegregation progress” required under federal law. Justice provides little evidence to support this claim, but there couldn’t be a clearer expression of how the civil-rights establishment is locked in a 1950s time warp.
Passed in 2012, Louisiana’s state-wide program guarantees a voucher to students from families with incomes below 250% of poverty and who attend schools graded C or below. The point is to let kids escape the segregation of failed schools, and about 90% of the beneficiaries are black.
But Justice is more worried about the complexion of the schools’ student body than their manifest failure to educate. During the 2012-13 school year, about 10% of voucher recipients came from 22 districts that remain under desegregation orders from 50 or so years ago.
For example, says the complaint, in several of those 22 districts “the voucher recipients were in the racial minority at the public school they attended before receiving the voucher.” In other words, Justice is claiming that the voucher program may be illegal because minority kids made their failing public schools more white by leaving those schools to go to better private schools. [continue reading]
For further enlightenment:
A Poignant Anniversary, by Thomas Sowell
Is Obama Good for Black Americans? by Mona Charen
Obama’s War on Black Education, by Derrick Wilburn
” [Obama’s] speech at Knox College, Illinois, was supposed to be the president’s come-back moment, the first of a series of addresses aimed at retaking the initiative by the White House. Instead it was a train wreck. In an hour-long address, which seemed to last forever (and par for course started 15 minutes late), the president spoke in deeply partisan terms, often with bitterness and anger, lambasting his political opponents, dismissing criticism of his policies, and launching into his favourite theme of class warfare, attacking the wealthy and what he calls the ‘winner takes all economy.’ In a display of extraordinary arrogance (even by his standards), he condemned what he called ‘an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals,’ a direct reference to the Congressional investigations into the IRS and Benghazi scandals, which most Americans don’t see as phony.” —Nile Gardiner
“We repeat the nauseous canard that ‘it is not the crime, but the cover-up’ that gets you in trouble in Washington. But that too is often a lie, at least most of the time. Had Eric Holder told the truth about Fast and Furious, the New Black Panther case, or the AP/James Rosen case, he would not be attorney general now. If Susan Rice had gone on television and confessed the details about the status and recent history of the security measures in Libya, or the true nature of the post- “lead from behind” misadventure, or the spread of post-bin Laden al-Qaeda franchisers in 2012, she might have been out of a job — either by dismissal or by the failure of her president to win reelection. Lying worked. Obama is president. She is national security advisor. Had Jay Carney confessed that the talking points about Benghazi were doctored from the outset, it might have mattered in the 2012 election. Lying then and now worked.” —Victor Davis Hanson
“But most cynical of all is Obama’s contempt for the ‘phony scandals’ that have plagued him. Which ones are phony, exactly? The Justice Department’s monitoring of journalists was sufficiently outrageous that Obama ordered the attorney general to review DOJ policies. Why do that if the concerns were phony? When a few rogue IRS agents in Cincinnati were alleged to have deliberately targeted conservative groups, Obama said it would be ‘outrageous’ if those allegations were proven true. But when that cover story is proved a deliberate lie from an IRS official in Washington, and it’s revealed thanks to Congressional oversight that the policy actually went all the way to an Obama political appointee, the scandal suddenly becomes ‘phony.’ Odd how that works.” —Jonah Goldberg