Free at LastnI’lie Rockford school-desegregation lawsuitnis finally over—or at least it will be,non Sunday, June 30, 2002. Yesterday—nWednesday, April 18 —the United StatesnCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuitnoverruled federal Magistrate P. MichaelnMahoney and granted tlie school districtn”unitary status” (the legal term for being,nin the court’s words, “sufficiently desegregatednto recjuire the dissoluHon of the decreenand the return of control of the publicnschools to the school board”). After 12nyears of federal control and $300 million,nthe citizens of Rockford can finally seenthe light at the end of the tunnel.nNo one on either side of the lawsuitnwas surprised by the ruling. Rockford’snschools have been completely “desegregated”nfor several years now—“desegregation”ndefined not as ec|ual access to educafion,nbut as quotas. As Judge RichardnPosner, writing for the court, observ’cd:nDesegregation had been defined bynthe magistrate judge as the conditionnin which the minorit)’ compositionnof each school would not deviatenby more than 15 percentagenpoints from the minorit’ compositionnof the population of the schoolndistrict.. . . the Rockford publicnschools are now less segregated thannthose in any previous case in whichna school system was declared “unitary”n[emphasis added] . . .nThe Seventh Circuit has never carednfor Magistrate Mahoney’s excessive zealnin pursuing “remedies,” and the appealsncourt has repeatedly struck down whatnPosner refers to as “unrealistic goals fornclosing the white-minority gap in testnscores.” hi his opinion, Posner took advantagenof one last opportunit)’ to weighnin on the C[uestion of equalit)’ of result:n[I]t is obvious that other factors besidesndiscrimination contribute tonunequal educational attainment,nsuch as povert)’, parents’ educationnand employment, family size,nparental attitudes and behavior,nprenatal, neonatal, and childnhealtii care, peer-group pressures,nLetter From Rockfordnhy Scott P. Richertnand ethnic culture.nThe mention of “ethnic culture” leftnone of the lawyers for the plaintiff classnseeing red, and she all but accused Posnernof being a racist. But multiculturalistsncan’t have it both ways: If, when youncontrol for all other factors, there is still andisparit)’ of educational result, then thendifference must be attributable either tongenetics (which multiculturalists vehementiyndeny) or to culture.nPosner also criticized the assault onnfree speech by both the plaintiffs’ lawyersnand, implicitiy. Magistrate Mahoney:nIt is not. . . that the school boardnmust “actively” support Hie decree,nmust ex|3ress “commitment” to it,nand, above all, must not criticize itnI’he undemocratic implications ofnthis position leave us almostnspeechless. Are . .. the members ofnthe school board, elected long afternand not complieit in the illegalitiesnthat gave rise to the litigation, forbidden,nunder threat of never resumingncontrol of the publicnschool system that they were electednto govern, to criticize a decreenthat in pursuit of an ambitious andnpossibly quixotic scheme of socialnengineering has imposed a formidablentax burden on the jDcoplenwho elected these officials?nIn that last sentence, Posner displayedna greater understanding of the concernsnof Rockford’s citizens than did the schoolboardnmembers who filed tiie request fornunitar}’ status. This lawsuit has touchednon numerous constitutional and social issues:njudicial taxation, neighborhoodnschools, busing, separation of powers.nnnfederalism. But for most Rockfordians,nthis case has always been primarily aboutntaxes. That was made abundantiy clearnin the April 3 school-board elections,nwhen board members Ted Biondo andnPatti Delugas —elected on promises tonfight judicial taxation, reduce spending,nand provide tax relief—were resoundinglyndefeated by previous opponents NancynKalchbrenner and Jay Nellis, whom theynhad soundly defeated in 1997. By switchingntheir votes on judicial taxation andnendorsing three referenda in two years,nBiondo and Delugas confused and demoralizedntheir base. (The number ofntax ]3rotesters jjlunimeted from 16,000 inn1997, the year tiiat they were elected, tonfewer than 8,000 in 1999, the year theynboth voted for the tort fund.) Many ofntheir previous supporters simply didn’tnboriier to go to the polls this year, and othersncouldn’t bring tiiemselves to mark thenballot for candidates who had done thenvery same things that they had claimedntheir opponents would do.nFew of the real heroes of the last 12nyears will ever receive the recognitionnthey deserve: Mary Hitchcock, one of thenfounders of Rockford Educating All Childrenn(R.E.A.CH.), the citizens’ gro.upnthat led the battle against the lawsuit;nBarb Dent, who ran R.E.A.CH.’s annualntax protest; David Strommer, now in hisnriiird term as a board member, who nevernonce wavered in his convictions thatnjudicial taxation and judicial tyrannynwere wrong. And there are others, toonnumerous to mention, who faithfullynattended board meetings, pounded thenpavement for board candidates, and neverngave up hope that their efforts wouldnbring us to where we are today.nAt the end of 12 years, our freedom isnfinally in sight, but it’s impossible to forgetnall that we’ve lost. Our public schoolsnwill never recover; few of those who flednRockford because of the lawsuit will evernreturn; the eit)’ has undergone a dramaticndemographic shift over the last decaden(more on that in November); and I justnheard on the radio that the collective lossnof propert}’ values in Rockford is estimatednat over one billion dollars. Still, onnthis beautiful spring day, the sun seems tonshine a little brighter, and the birds soundna little sweeter. Thank God Almight)’, wenare free at last.