A Critical Race Theory Analysis of Milliken v. Bradley

• In Event: Milliken at 50: Looking Back to Imagine Forward

Abstract

Those interested in reimagining education free of racism must first attend to how white supremacy reproduces itself through institutions, including both the legal system and the education system. The Milliken v. Bradley (1974) decision illuminates the white supremacist state reproducing itself at the intersection of the schools and courts.

We employ Critical Race Theory (CRT) as the lens for our close reading of the Court’s decision in Milliken. The tenet of “interest convergence” first theorized by Professor Derrick Bell grounds our analysis. In Bell’s words, “The interests of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites” (1980, p. 523). One "interest" that white supremacist institutions, including schools and courts, often protect at the expense of racial justice is what Harris has called "whiteness as property": that the law serves to protect the unearned material and social benefits that whiteness affords. (1993, p. 1713). In order to protect the property of whiteness while also maintaining a guise of neutrality, institutional actors depend on white ignorance active work to not know or understand the racial inequality created by white supremacy. (Mills 1997).

Our analysis of the language of the Milliken decision illuminates that the Supreme Court found the suburban districts to be “innocent” of creating and maintaining segregation, and therefore forbade the state from including them in any desegregation plan. Contrasting the color-evasive, neutral language of the majority opinion with the political and cultural context, the white ignorance upon which the decision rests comes into sharp focus (Khalifa et al 2016, p. 3; Orfield, 2015, p. 370). The Milliken decision foreseeably protected white flight and deterred Northern interdistrict desegregation plans. It also was a key moment in the ongoing legal protection of whiteness as property (Harris, 1993) because it absolved white suburban schools of wrongdoing for continuing to hoard resources and offer unearned advantages to white families. As a result, students learn and teachers teach in racially isolated schools across the U.S. North – but few understand why this is so, or are offered opportunities to imagine and work toward a more just future in education (Baugh, 2011).

We hope that an in-depth analysis of the language of the Milliken decision through the lens of CRT can disrupt white ignorance by illuminating how white supremacy is reproduced through courts and schools, and thereby open space for educators to imagine an education system that disrupts rather than reproduces white supremacy.

Authors

• Briana Markoff, Michigan State University

• Kristine Bowman, Michigan State University