Some opponents of busing were not reacting from racist motives.
Many Americans think that busing students from their homes to a distant school is unjust.
Parents who move to better neighborhoods so that they can send their children to better schools do not want to see their children go back to their old schools.
When the children must leave the community for the better part of the day, it's hard for parents to want their children to be a part of it.
Many African American families were opposed to busing because of their fears for their children's safety and because of the long bus rides into predominantly white neighborhoods.
America's ambivalence about busing has been shared by the Supreme Court.
In 1971, it endorsed busing as a remedy for segregating schools, but three years later it ruled that it couldn't be done unless officials could prove that the district lines had been drawn in a way that discriminated against whites.
Civil rights activists and policymakers have to decide if the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal protection simply requires that the states not sanction discrimination or if it imposes an active obligation on them to integrate blacks and whites.
The northern experience shows that legal discrimination does not mean equality.
President Johnson issued an executive order in 1965, prohibiting discrimination in firms doing business with the government, and ordering them to take affirmative action to compensate for discrimination in the past.
If a firm had no black employees, it wasn't enough to not have a policy against hiring them; the firm now had to actively recruit and hire blacks.
The racial mix of employees would be the actual outcome of the hiring procedure, not the law or the test.
The results of decades of decisions by white males to hire or admit other white males were shown.
Blacks, as well as other minorities and women, were demoted to low-paying, low-status jobs.
The percentage of blacks working in firms should reflect the percentage of blacks in the labor force after Johnson's executive order.
Many colleges and universities reserved space on their admissions lists for minorities, sometimes accepting minority applicants with lower test scores than whites.
Affirmative action has been controversial among the American public.
There is tension in American politics between procedural and substantive equality, between equality of treatment and equality of results.
The tension arises when Americans are faced with policies of busing and affirmative action, both of which are attempts to bring about substantive equality.
The end results seem attractive, but the means to get there seem unfair in the American value system.
Police departments claim that stop-and-frisk checks are not discrimination.
African Americans are stopped at a higher rate than other Americans.
During the New York City Council hearing, Donald Trump came out in support of the policy, which he recommended that it be used in Chicago.
Until the Reagan years, judicial tolerance for affirmative action was the standard.
The message fell on fertile ground when the administration tried to change the Court's rulings on affirmative action.
In 1989 the Court fulfilled civil rights advocates' most pessimistic expectations, striking down a variety of civil rights laws.
The Supreme Court's use of strict scrutiny on laws that discriminate on the basis of race has ended most de jure discrimination.
There are consequences to the fact that tradition and practice in the United States endorse a fundamental inequality of power.
There are other ways in which we fall short of true racial equality, despite the fact that groups like Black Lives Matter call attention to the fact that young black men are often racially profiled, killed by police without justification, and imprisoned at higher rates than whites.
Although there is a large and growing black middle class in many parts of the country, blacks lag behind whites on most indicators.
African Americans had a median household income of $35,398, while whites had a median of $60,258.
Blacks trail whites in businesses owned, small business loans received, homeownership, and other indicators of achieving the promises of the American Dream.
For every dollar earned by a white man in the same job, those in securities and financial services make seventy-two cents.
They theorize that the gap is due to blacks being assigned by employers to black clients who are often less well off than whites.
The nation elected its first black president.
Barack Obama was a popular president.
It is true that when Obama was on the ballot, African American voter turnout was way up, and it is tempting to think that that signals the end of racial discrimination in politics.
In 2012 African American turnout was 13 percent of the electorate, but in 2016 it was only 12 percent.
A significant percentage of Americans believed that Obama was never qualified to be president because he was not born in the United States, despite the administration's promise to make race less of a factor.
What's at stake.
It's not certain if Obama's presidency will have an effect on the number of African Americans in the U.S. African Americans were more positive about black progress after Obama's election.
54 percent of blacks said that life will be better for them in the future, compared to 44 percent who said so in 2007, but only 32 percent said that a lot of progress had been made.
Obama began to speak out more about race.
In a country with a history of suppressing the black vote, the economic disadvantage of African Americans was translated into a political limitation.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the Supreme Court threw out in a five-to-four decision, required nine southern states to "pre-clear" with the Department of Justice any changes.
The ruling left the door open for new congressional legislation to qualify states for pre-clearance, but so far, Republican stalling tactics have held it off.
The courts continue to push back against attempts to limit voting rights.
The Supreme Court let stand a 2016 federal appeals court decision that struck down a North Carolina voter ID law because it targeted African American voters.
The Supreme Court did not take a clear stand against gerrymander.