Doesn't your child deserve a good education? Doesn't every Minnesota child? The authors of our state Constitution thought so. They included language that requires the Legislature to provide Minnesota children a "thorough and efficient system of public schools."
But what if the Legislature doesn't do its job? Must we sit quietly and do nothing? Katherine Kersten must think so. Her attack on the families who want the Legislature to do its job ("A general mess," Oct. 7) demonstrates indifference to the quality of the education our children are getting as well as acceptance of a racially segregated school system.
The plaintiffs in Cruz-Guzman vs. State of Minnesota want a chance to prove to a Minnesota court that the Minnesota Legislature has violated the rights of the children of Minneapolis and St. Paul by operating a racially segregated educational system. Rejecting arguments that Kersten tries to rehash, the state Supreme Court has now given them that chance.
At the heart of this case are children — children who are in schools that are failing them. Minnesota has some of the worst achievement gaps in the country between white children and children of color. Our children of color are far behind their white peers, and segregated schools are part of the problem. Our country's painful history has taught us that separate is not equal.
All parts of our government are responsible for delivering on a promise of equality, a promise that we break every day. Alejandro Cruz-Guzman and other parents are fighting for that promise, because all children in Minnesota deserve a good education in a good school.
Is allowing these families to hold the Legislature accountable "judicial activism," as Kersten claims? Hardly. The law in Minnesota since 1871 has been that Minnesotans are entitled to "an education which will fit them to discharge intelligently their duties as citizens of the republic." And in 1993 the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the right under our Constitution's Education Clause to a "general and uniform system of education" that provides an adequate education to all students in Minnesota is "fundamental," the most valuable and most highly protected category of constitutional rights.
There is nothing "activist" about a court deciding whether other branches of our government have violated our rights. The U.S. Supreme Court settled that question 215 years ago in Marbury vs. Madison. Courts deciding such issues are not being "activist"; they are performing their constitutional duty.
The plaintiffs in Cruz-Guzman do not want courts to take control over our educational system. They want the Legislature to do its job of providing a good education to Minnesota students. Courts in more than 20 states agree with our Supreme Court's opinion in Cruz-Guzman that courts can require their legislatures to comply with their constitutions. These states have not seen a "takeover" of their education systems by the courts. Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court expressly rejected this bugaboo, explaining that what the plaintiffs seek is the answer to a "yes or no question": Has the Legislature satisfied its obligation under the Constitution's Education Clause?