Joe Biden’s Response to Kamala Harris on Busing Is Going to Haunt His Campaign

He had 40 years to come up with a better answer than this.

Kamala Harris wasn’t going to miss her chance. After a back-and-forth over police shootings of African-American men midway through Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate, NBC moderator Chuck Todd was preparing to change the subject when the California senator interjected.

Harris, the only black candidate on the stage, started talking about growing up in the Bay Area in a neighborhood where one white family wouldn’t let their kids play with her. And then she turned to former Vice President Joe Biden and referred to his recent comments about working with segregationist senators early in his career.

“I do not believe you are a racist,” she began, “and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground. But I also believe, and it’s personal and it actuallyā€”it was hurtful, to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on segregation of race in this country.” 

Biden, standing a few feet away, could only look on grimly as Harris pivoted to an issue she and her campaign had evidently prepared forā€”his work in the 1970s to block the federal government from desegregating public schools via busing.

“There was a little girl in California, who was part of the second class to integrate her public school. And she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”

Biden paused for the applause to subside, and then he told Harris she was wrong.

“In terms of busing, you would have been able to go to school in the same exact way because it was a local decision made by your city council. That’s fine. That’s one of the things I argued for, that we should be breaking down these lines.”

“Do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then?” Harris asked.

“I did not oppose busing in America,” Biden said. “What I opposed was busing ordered by the Department of Education, that’s what I opposed.”

The exchange lasted about four minutes, but it was perhaps the most intense moment of the Democratic primary so far. And it’s a moment that might linger for a lot longer still, because Biden’s explanation of his record doesn’t pass muster. He did, in fact, oppose busing in America. He argued against the idea forcefully, as an example of liberal overreach, and evidence of the ways in which reformers had “lost our bearings since the 1954 Brown vs. School Board desegregation case,” as he told one interviewer.

As my colleague Hannah Levintova recounted in April:

During one debate on the Senate floor, Biden said, ā€œI have become convinced that busing is a bankrupt concept,ā€ as he backed an anti-busing measure sponsored by avowed segregationist Sen. Jesse Helms. When a federally mandated integration program was set to begin in Bidenā€™s home state in the late 1970s, the Delaware senator co-sponsored an amendment, tacked on to an education appropriations bill, which would have limited courtsā€™ ability to order busing and imposed a halt on all pending busing orders around the country. The Washington Post at the time called it ā€œthe most far-reaching antibusing measure to receive serious consideration in the Senate.ā€ (It failed by a slim margin.)

Biden’s argument was that busing was unfair to white students who would have to go to sub-standard, predominantly black schools. He believed it crossed a line that civil rights reformers should respect and acknowledge. Here’s what he told a Delaware newspaper in 1975:

The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with. What it says is, “In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.” Thatā€™s racist! Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

He rejected the argument that “In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race.” These are not technical arguments about the education department’s role in things, although that was the defensive mechanism employed by Biden to defeat it. They are arguments about the idea of busingā€”exactly like Harris claimed.

When the Washington Post reported those comments in March, the paper asked Biden spokesman Bill Russo for the candidate’s position on busing today. The response was that Biden’s position hadn’t changedā€”he thought busing was a bad idea: ā€œHe never thought busing was the best way to integrate schools in Delawareā€”a position which most people now agree with,ā€ Russo told the Post. ā€œAs he said during those many years of debate, busing would not achieve equal opportunity. And it didnā€™t.ā€

Biden tried to argue on Thursday that his opposition to busing at a federal level was unrelated to Harris’ own educational experience. In other words, if a school district somewhere outside of Delaware decided to employ the busing system, that was their prerogative. But as Harris noted, the whole impetus for federal intervention on civil rights is that local governments didn’t want to get in line and that left to their own devices they were in no hurry to desegregate their schools.

“It was a failure of states to integrate public schools in America,” Harris responded. “I was part of the second class to integrate Berkeley, California public schools almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education.”

“Because your city council made that decision, it was a local decision,” Biden said.

“So that’s where the federal government must step in!” Harris responded. “That’s why we have the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. That’s why we need to pass the Equality Act, that’s why we need to pass the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. Because there are moments in history when states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.”

Biden tried to respond, but eventually he threw up his hands and cut himself off. “My time’s up,” he said.

Perhaps Kamala Harris thought so too.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate