This article examines how the "discourse moment" constituted by "D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic" might affect the future of schooling for Roma youth. In this article, the authors follow the scheme proposed by Lilie Chouliaraki and Norman Fairclough, who suggest a five-part framework for critical discourse analysis: statement of the problem, discussion of the obstacles to the problem's solution, function of the problem in the practice, possible ways past the obstacles, and reflection on the analysis itself. The authors have identified the problem--that is, the Gypsy problem--and through a discussion of social exclusion, the interplay between ethnic animus and social deviancy, and parental involvement in schools, they examine obstacles to its solution. They then take up the analysis of three discourse strands related to the problem in practice, the court decision. Finally, they consider possible solutions to the problem and conclude with reflective remarks on underlying, unresolved conflicts in the project of improving education for Roma students. (Contains 15 footnotes.)