Regarding race and the equal protection clause, Scalia's combination of text and tradition culminates in a simple rule: no governmental
use of racial classifications except in extraordinary circumstances.
This set him apart from his more - liberal colleagues, who viewed Brown v. Board of Education (1954) not as a prohibition on the use
of racial classifications in education, but rather as a mandate for judges to do whatever they could to promote «equal educational opportunity.»
At its heart lies a simple rule — no use
of racial classifications except to remedy specific constitutional violations — that does as much to constrain as to empower judges.
Furthermore, it puts a satirical premium on «whiteness», ridiculing the superficial luxury
of racial classification as well as critiquing the hard social realities of street vending experienced by those who have been discriminated against in terms of race or class.
Although he could not prove there was broad support for prohibiting de jure segregation in 1868, he did show that there was a clear and vibrant tradition in case law that viewed the use
of racial classifications by government as pernicious, particularly because such a practice is so susceptible to the tyranny of majority faction.
Those entrusted with directing our public schools can bring to bear the creativity of experts, parents, administrators, and other concerned citizens to find a way to achieve the compelling interests they face without resorting to widespread governmental allocation of benefits and burdens on the
basis of racial classifications.
A recent Education Next forum takes a close look at legal arguments over the use
of racial classifications beginning with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling outlawing school segregation.
Of course, the fact that whites constitute a political majority in our Nation does not necessarily mean that active judicial
scrutiny of racial classifications that disadvantage whites is inappropriate.
Given the dangers inherent in the
use of racial classifications, Scalia maintained, we should take this tool out of the hands of public officials, even if they claim to use it for «benign» purposes.