logo
Trump officials are vowing to end school desegregation orders. Some parents say they're still needed

Trump officials are vowing to end school desegregation orders. Some parents say they're still needed

FERRIDAY, La. (AP) — Even at a glance, the differences are obvious. The walls of Ferriday High School are old and worn, surrounded by barbed wire. Just a few miles away, Vidalia High School is clean and bright, with a new library and a crisp blue 'V' painted on orange brick.
Ferriday High is 90% Black. Vidalia High is 62% white.
For Black families, the contrast between the schools suggests 'we're not supposed to have the finer things,' said Brian Davis, a father in Ferriday. 'It's almost like our kids don't deserve it,' he said.
The schools are part of Concordia Parish, which was ordered to desegregate 60 years ago and remains under a court-ordered plan to this day. Yet there's growing momentum to release the district — and dozens of others — from decades-old orders that some call obsolete.
In a remarkable reversal, the Justice Department said it plans to start unwinding court-ordered desegregation plans dating to the Civil Rights Movement. Officials started in April, when they lifted a 1960s order in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish. Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department's civil rights division, has said others will 'bite the dust.'
It comes amid pressure from Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and his attorney general, who have called for all the state's remaining orders to be lifted. They describe the orders as burdens on districts and relics of a time when Black students were still forbidden from some schools.
The orders were always meant to be temporary — school systems can be released if they demonstrate they fully eradicated segregation. Decades later, that goal remains elusive, with stark racial imbalances persisting in many districts.
Civil rights groups say the orders are important to keep as tools to address the legacy of forced segregation — including disparities in student discipline, academic programs and teacher hiring. They point to cases like Concordia, where the decades-old order was used to stop a charter school from favoring white students in admissions.
'Concordia is one where it's old, but a lot is happening there,' said Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'That's true for a lot of these cases. They're not just sitting silently.'
Debates over integration are far from settled
Last year, before President Donald Trump took office, Concordia Parish rejected a Justice Department plan that would have ended its case if the district combined several majority white and majority Black elementary and middle schools.
At a town hall meeting, Vidalia residents vigorously opposed the plan, saying it would disrupt students' lives and expose their children to drugs and violence. An official from the Louisiana attorney general's office spoke against the proposal and said the Trump administration likely would change course on older orders.
Accepting the plan would have been a 'death sentence' for the district, said Paul Nelson, a former Concordia superintendent. White families would have fled to private schools or other districts, said Nelson, who wants the court order removed.
'It's time to move on,' said Nelson, who left the district in 2016. 'Let's start looking to build for the future, not looking back to what our grandparents may have gone through.'
At Ferriday High, athletic coach Derrick Davis supported combining schools in Ferriday and Vidalia. He said the district's disparities come into focus whenever his teams visit schools with newer sports facilities.
'It seems to me, if we'd all combine, we can all get what we need,' he said.
Others oppose merging schools if it's done solely for the sake of achieving racial balance. 'Redistricting and going to different places they're not used to ... it would be a culture shock to some people,' said Ferriday's school resource officer, Marcus Martin, who like Derrick Davis is Black.
The district's current superintendent and school board did not respond to requests for comment.
Federal orders offer leverage for racial discrimination cases
Concordia is among more than 120 districts across the South that remain under desegregation orders from the 1960s and '70s, including about a dozen in Louisiana.
Calling the orders historical relics is 'unequivocally false,' said Shaheena Simons, who until April led the Justice Department section that oversees school desegregation cases.
'Segregation and inequality persist in our schools, and they persist in districts that are still under desegregation orders,' she said.
With court orders in place, families facing discrimination can reach out directly to the Justice Department or seek relief from the court. Otherwise, the only recourse is a lawsuit, which many families can't afford, Simons said.
In Concordia, the order played into a battle over a charter school that opened in 2013 on the former campus of an all-white private school. To protect the area's progress on racial integration, a judge ordered Delta Charter School to build a student body that reflected the district's racial demographics. But in its first year, the school was just 15% Black.
After a court challenge, Delta was ordered to give priority to Black students. Today, about 40% of its students are Black.
Desegregation orders have been invoked recently in other cases around the state. One led to an order to address disproportionately high rates of discipline for Black students, and in another a predominantly Black elementary school was relocated from a site close to a chemical plant.
The Justice Department could easily end some desegregation orders
The Trump administration was able to close the Plaquemines case with little resistance because the original plaintiffs are no longer involved — the Justice Department was litigating the case alone. Concordia and an unknown number of other districts are in the same situation, making them vulnerable to quick dismissals.
Concordia's case dates to 1965, when the area was strictly segregated and home to a violent offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. When Black families in Ferriday sued for access to all-white schools, the federal government intervened.
As the district integrated its schools, white families fled Ferriday. The district's schools came to reflect the demographics of their surrounding areas. Ferriday is mostly Black and low-income, while Vidalia is mostly white and takes in tax revenue from a hydroelectric plant. A third town in the district, Monterey, has a high school that's 95% white.
At the December town hall, Vidalia resident Ronnie Blackwell said the area 'feels like a Mayberry, which is great,' referring to the fictional Southern town from 'The Andy Griffith Show.' The federal government, he said, has 'probably destroyed more communities and school systems than it ever helped.'
Under its court order, Concordia must allow students in majority Black schools to transfer to majority white schools. It also files reports on teacher demographics and student discipline.
After failing to negotiate a resolution with the Justice Department, Concordia is scheduled to make its case that the judge should dismiss the order, according to court documents. Meanwhile, amid a wave of resignations in the federal government, all but two of the Justice Department lawyers assigned to the case have left.
Without court supervision, Brian Davis sees little hope for improvement.
'A lot of parents over here in Ferriday, they're stuck here because here they don't have the resources to move their kids from A to B,' he said. 'You'll find schools like Ferriday — the term is, to me, slipping into darkness.'
___
The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. capital
Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. capital

CNBC

time3 hours ago

  • CNBC

Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. capital

The Republican governors of three states are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the request of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has portrayed the city as awash in crime. The announcements on Saturday of troops from hundreds of miles away in West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio came a day after D.C. officials and the Trump administration negotiated a deal to keep Mayor Muriel Bowser's appointed police chief, Pamela Smith, in charge of the police department after D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit to block the federal takeover of the department. Trump, a Republican, said this week he was deploying hundreds of D.C. National Guard troops to Washington and temporarily taking over the Democratic-led city's police department to curb what he depicted as a crime and homelessness emergency. Justice Department data, however, showed violent crime in 2024 hit a 30-year low in Washington, a self-governing federal district under the jurisdiction of Congress. West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey's office said in a statement he was deploying 300 to 400 National Guard troops to D.C. in "a show of commitment to public safety and regional cooperation." The statement said he also was providing equipment and specialized training. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster responded to a Pentagon request by announcing that 200 of his state's National Guard troops would be sent. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said he would send 150 military police members in the coming days, adding none of them were "currently serving as law enforcement officers in the state." After the announcements, Mayor Bowser posted on X: "American soldiers and airmen policing American citizens on American soil is #UnAmerican." The National Guard serves as a militia that answers to the governors of the 50 states except when called into federal service. The D.C. National Guard reports directly to the president. Trump, who has suggested he could take similar actions in other Democratic-controlled cities, has sought to expand the powers of the presidency in his second term, inserting himself into the affairs of major banks, law firms and elite universities. In June, Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, against the wishes of California's Democratic governor, during protests over mass immigration raids by federal officials. South Carolina's McMaster said his troops would immediately return to South Carolina if needed to respond to a possible hurricane or other natural disaster. Hurricane Erin, now northeast of Puerto Rico, has become a catastrophic Category 5 storm that could bring ocean swells to the U.S. East Coast early next week, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said on Saturday. National Guard troops often respond to natural disasters and rarely police U.S. civilians. Drew Galang, a spokesperson for West Virginia's Morrisey, said the state's National Guard received the order to send equipment and personnel to D.C. late on Friday and was working to organize the deployment. A White House official said on Saturday that more National Guard troops would be called in to Washington to "protect federal assets, create a safe environment for law enforcement officials to carry out their duties when required, and provide a visible presence to deter crime." A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a formal order was expected to go out that would authorize National Guard troops in D.C. to carry firearms. The official said this order would affect mostly military police officers with sidearms. Reuters has reported that the National Guard troops would have weapons nearby, such as in their vehicles. The White House said on Saturday that D.C. National Guard members have conducted patrols on foot and in vehicles around the National Mall and Union Station. The White House said the National Guard troops are not making arrests now and that they may be armed. It is not clear how the administration could deploy National Guard troops elsewhere. A federal judge in San Francisco is expected in the coming weeks to issue a ruling on whether Trump violated the law with the Los Angeles deployments.

Trump's reciprocal tariffs could be struck down as soon as this month — and the administration is warning of economic apocalypse
Trump's reciprocal tariffs could be struck down as soon as this month — and the administration is warning of economic apocalypse

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's reciprocal tariffs could be struck down as soon as this month — and the administration is warning of economic apocalypse

President Donald Trump and his Justice Department have issued doomsday warnings recently on what would happen if a federal appeals court rules against the administration in a legal challenge to his so-called reciprocal tariffs. James Lucier at Alpha Capital Partners said the court could issue a ruling later this month or next month. The Trump administration sees complete disaster for the U.S. economy if its reciprocal tariffs are struck down, revealing its level of concern as a court is expected to issue a critical decision soon. On July 31, a federal appeals court heard arguments in a case challenging the tariffs' legal basis under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), and the judges expressed deep skepticism about the administration's side. In a note this past week, James Lucier at Capital Alpha Partners said a decision is expected by the end of September, but could come as soon as late August. A unanimous or near-unanimous ruling could give the Supreme Court cover to avoid taking the case immediately and reject the administration's request to issue a stay that would keep the tariffs in place in the meantime. The dire warnings also represent 'a remarkable change in tune by the administration, which until now has always insisted that it had legal authority to get the deals done one way or another even if the IEEPA tariffs were struck down,' he added. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs helped leverage a series of trade deals, including an agreement with the European Union, which pledged to invest $600 billion in the U.S. and buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy products, with 'vast amounts' of American weapons in the mix. Similarly, the U.S.-Japan trade deal entails $550 billion of investments from Tokyo. 'Financial ruin' The U.S. hasn't received immediate cash transfers in those amounts. Still, in a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday, Justice Department officials suggested the government would suddenly owe everyone money—leading to catastrophe. 'The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin,' wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate. They also warned that unwinding the trade deals would lead to a '1929-style result.' That echoed a post from Trump on Truth Social days earlier, when he predicted another Great Depression would hit America if the court rules against his tariffs. Sauer and Shumate turned up the volume even higher in their subsequent letter, elaborating further on the depression warning. 'In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened,' they wrote. 'In short, the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.' 'The president is in a jam' To be sure, the government has generated significant tariff revenue since April, and importers who paid the reciprocal duties could seek reimbursement if they are struck down. But that's only about $100 billion and also includes revenue from sectoral tariffs that were imposed under a separate legal basis that's not at risk. 'The real problem, the letter implies, is that Trump does not have legal authority to replicate the IEEPA tariffs under other tariff statutes if the court strikes the IEEPA tariffs down,' Lucier explained. 'In other words, the president is in a jam because if the court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, his trade deals have no legal basis.' A note from Yardeni Research on Wednesday also pointed out that the administration is becoming increasingly concerned about losing the court case. The letter from the Justice Department officials appears to anticipate that they will lose the case as they are asking for a stay if the court goes against them. There will be 'messy' consequences if reciprocal tariffs are struck down, according to Yardeni, as Trump needs the revenue from tariffs to reduce the budget deficit and help to lower bond yields. 'If he loses in court, these yields might move higher. Stock prices might decline on this news initially due to a new round of policy uncertainty,' the note said. 'So the dire tone in the letter is understandable, even though it is a wee bit over the top.' This story was originally featured on

Trump's reciprocal tariffs could be struck down as soon as this month — and the administration is warning of economic apocalypse
Trump's reciprocal tariffs could be struck down as soon as this month — and the administration is warning of economic apocalypse

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's reciprocal tariffs could be struck down as soon as this month — and the administration is warning of economic apocalypse

President Donald Trump and his Justice Department have issued doomsday warnings recently on what would happen if a federal appeals court rules against the administration in a legal challenge to his so-called reciprocal tariffs. James Lucier at Alpha Capital Partners said the court could issue a ruling later this month or next month. The Trump administration sees complete disaster for the U.S. economy if its reciprocal tariffs are struck down, revealing its level of concern as a court is expected to issue a critical decision soon. On July 31, a federal appeals court heard arguments in a case challenging the tariffs' legal basis under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), and the judges expressed deep skepticism about the administration's side. In a note this past week, James Lucier at Capital Alpha Partners said a decision is expected by the end of September, but could come as soon as late August. A unanimous or near-unanimous ruling could give the Supreme Court cover to avoid taking the case immediately and reject the administration's request to issue a stay that would keep the tariffs in place in the meantime. The dire warnings also represent 'a remarkable change in tune by the administration, which until now has always insisted that it had legal authority to get the deals done one way or another even if the IEEPA tariffs were struck down,' he added. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs helped leverage a series of trade deals, including an agreement with the European Union, which pledged to invest $600 billion in the U.S. and buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy products, with 'vast amounts' of American weapons in the mix. Similarly, the U.S.-Japan trade deal entails $550 billion of investments from Tokyo. 'Financial ruin' The U.S. hasn't received immediate cash transfers in those amounts. Still, in a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday, Justice Department officials suggested the government would suddenly owe everyone money—leading to catastrophe. 'The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin,' wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate. They also warned that unwinding the trade deals would lead to a '1929-style result.' That echoed a post from Trump on Truth Social days earlier, when he predicted another Great Depression would hit America if the court rules against his tariffs. Sauer and Shumate turned up the volume even higher in their subsequent letter, elaborating further on the depression warning. 'In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened,' they wrote. 'In short, the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.' 'The president is in a jam' To be sure, the government has generated significant tariff revenue since April, and importers who paid the reciprocal duties could seek reimbursement if they are struck down. But that's only about $100 billion and also includes revenue from sectoral tariffs that were imposed under a separate legal basis that's not at risk. 'The real problem, the letter implies, is that Trump does not have legal authority to replicate the IEEPA tariffs under other tariff statutes if the court strikes the IEEPA tariffs down,' Lucier explained. 'In other words, the president is in a jam because if the court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, his trade deals have no legal basis.' A note from Yardeni Research on Wednesday also pointed out that the administration is becoming increasingly concerned about losing the court case. The letter from the Justice Department officials appears to anticipate that they will lose the case as they are asking for a stay if the court goes against them. There will be 'messy' consequences if reciprocal tariffs are struck down, according to Yardeni, as Trump needs the revenue from tariffs to reduce the budget deficit and help to lower bond yields. 'If he loses in court, these yields might move higher. Stock prices might decline on this news initially due to a new round of policy uncertainty,' the note said. 'So the dire tone in the letter is understandable, even though it is a wee bit over the top.' This story was originally featured on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store