Well, I guess our friends down at the Houston Chronicle deserve “credit” for at least putting this whopper where it belongs–in an opinion editorial– instead of sneaking it into a supposedly “straight” news story.

HEADLINE
Bright spot: Supreme Court ruling backing parents of learning impaired children is a rare victory for the little guy.

With recent rulings favoring corporate over shareholder rights and opposing school districts attempting to promote classroom diversity, the U.S. Supreme Court has persuaded many observers that it has tilted toward big business and conservative ideologues.

I’m not familiar with the “favoring corporate over shareholder rights” ruling the Chronicle is referencing; perhaps Owen of RickG will wish to weigh in.

But as far as “opposing school districts attempting to promote classroom diversity,” that’s just piffle. (h/t Courreges)

School districts are still perfectly able to promote classroom diversity–they just can’t judge individuals by the color of their skin while trying to do it. (Or as Chief Justice Robert’s quipped, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”)

Newsflash to the editors of the Chronicle– not all black and brown people think alike. (I’ve even known white folks to occasionally disagree.) Counting ethnic beans may make the bean-counters feel good, but genuine classroom diversity is much more likely to be achieved–without discriminating between people on the basis of race–by taking into account a student’s socio-economic status. And that remains perfectly legal.

And the more we learn about the case being highlighted by the Chronicle, the more absurd becomes its headline and lede paragraph, which posits the dichotomy of “little guy” on the one side vs. “conservative ideologues” on the other.

In a welcome exception, the nation’s highest court put its opinion behind the rights of parents of special needs children to take school districts to court without having to hire high-priced lawyers.

Facing off against publicly paid school district attorneys specializing in education law is not an even contest, but at least parents can now get their arguments before a judge.

In the case heard by the Supreme Court, Winkelman v. Parma City School District, an Ohio couple sued to force the school district to pay for private school for their autistic child because the public system offered no equivalent services. They were threatened with a steep fine by the Cleveland Bar Association for practicing law without a license.

To review, this case involves…

1. Parents trying to secure the freedom to escape an inadequate educational monopoly, who were…
2. Forced to fight taxpayer-funded government lawyers, and then…
3. Attacked by a guild seeking to use licensing regulations backed by the coercive power of the State to ward off competition.

Yeah, “conservative ideologues” don’t care about those sorts of issues at all.

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard that “religious liberty” plaintiff’s oftentimes think of themselves as “the little guy” too.